From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>
To: Raghavendra D Prabhu <rprabhu@wnohang.net>
Cc: Ian Campbell <ijc@hellion.org.uk>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jeremy.fitzhardinge@citrix.com,
xen-devel@lists.xensource.com,
virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Modpost section mismatch fix
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 10:13:23 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110705141323.GG2972@dumpdata.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110704221646.GB4490@Xye>
On Tue, Jul 05, 2011 at 03:46:46AM +0530, Raghavendra D Prabhu wrote:
> * On Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 09:49:48AM +0100, Ian Campbell <ijc@hellion.org.uk> wrote:
> >On Mon, 2011-07-04 at 04:55 +0530, Raghavendra D Prabhu wrote:
> >>[Sorry if duplicate, one earlier was corrupt]
>
> >>Hi,
> >> I got section mismatches reported by modpost in latest build. It got
> >> reported for xen_register_pirq and xen_unplug_emulated_devices
> >> functions.
> >
> >
> >> xen_register_pirq makes reference to
> >> acpi_sci_override_gsi in init.data section; marking
> >> xen_register_pirq with __init is not feasible since calls are made
> >> to it from acpi_register_gsi in non-init contexts. So marking it
> >> __refdata based on assumption that when acpi_sci_override_gsi is
> >> referenced, it is in early stages where it is alive.
> >
> >I don't think this assumption holds, since xen_register_pirq can be
> >called at any time and basically unconditionally references
> >acpi_sci_override_gsi.
>
> Yeah, that has been my guess as well, however I am not privy to the
> inner workings of Xen, so was not sure.
> >
> >If we don't want to remove the __init from acpi_sci_override_gsi then
> >perhaps xen_setup_acpi_sci needs to stash it somewhere?
> >
> >Or maybe xen_register_pirq could take an "int force_irq" which, if not
> >-1, would force a particular IRQ. The callsite in xen_setup_acpi_sci
> >(actually via xen_register_gsi so the param would need to be propagated
> >there) would be the only actual user?
>
> xen_register_gsi and hence, xen_register_pirq are called from
> init (with xen_setup_acpi_sci) and non-init (with
> acpi_register_gsi_xen); since xen_set_acpi_sci calls it with gsi ==
> acpi_sci_override_gsi and is marked __init, the best way would be to
> call xen_register_gsi and xen_register_pirq with a boolean argument like
> sci_override to obviate the need to use acpi_sci_override_gsi in
> register_pirq. I will send the patch with this change if it looks good.
Hold on, let me rebase #stable/pci.cleanups and see if the issue
here disappears.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>
To: Raghavendra D Prabhu <rprabhu@wnohang.net>
Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, jeremy.fitzhardinge@citrix.com,
virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ian Campbell <ijc@hellion.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Modpost section mismatch fix
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 10:13:23 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110705141323.GG2972@dumpdata.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110704221646.GB4490@Xye>
On Tue, Jul 05, 2011 at 03:46:46AM +0530, Raghavendra D Prabhu wrote:
> * On Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 09:49:48AM +0100, Ian Campbell <ijc@hellion.org.uk> wrote:
> >On Mon, 2011-07-04 at 04:55 +0530, Raghavendra D Prabhu wrote:
> >>[Sorry if duplicate, one earlier was corrupt]
>
> >>Hi,
> >> I got section mismatches reported by modpost in latest build. It got
> >> reported for xen_register_pirq and xen_unplug_emulated_devices
> >> functions.
> >
> >
> >> xen_register_pirq makes reference to
> >> acpi_sci_override_gsi in init.data section; marking
> >> xen_register_pirq with __init is not feasible since calls are made
> >> to it from acpi_register_gsi in non-init contexts. So marking it
> >> __refdata based on assumption that when acpi_sci_override_gsi is
> >> referenced, it is in early stages where it is alive.
> >
> >I don't think this assumption holds, since xen_register_pirq can be
> >called at any time and basically unconditionally references
> >acpi_sci_override_gsi.
>
> Yeah, that has been my guess as well, however I am not privy to the
> inner workings of Xen, so was not sure.
> >
> >If we don't want to remove the __init from acpi_sci_override_gsi then
> >perhaps xen_setup_acpi_sci needs to stash it somewhere?
> >
> >Or maybe xen_register_pirq could take an "int force_irq" which, if not
> >-1, would force a particular IRQ. The callsite in xen_setup_acpi_sci
> >(actually via xen_register_gsi so the param would need to be propagated
> >there) would be the only actual user?
>
> xen_register_gsi and hence, xen_register_pirq are called from
> init (with xen_setup_acpi_sci) and non-init (with
> acpi_register_gsi_xen); since xen_set_acpi_sci calls it with gsi ==
> acpi_sci_override_gsi and is marked __init, the best way would be to
> call xen_register_gsi and xen_register_pirq with a boolean argument like
> sci_override to obviate the need to use acpi_sci_override_gsi in
> register_pirq. I will send the patch with this change if it looks good.
Hold on, let me rebase #stable/pci.cleanups and see if the issue
here disappears.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-07-05 14:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-07-03 23:25 [PATCH] Modpost section mismatch fix Raghavendra D Prabhu
2011-07-04 8:49 ` Ian Campbell
2011-07-04 8:49 ` Ian Campbell
2011-07-04 22:16 ` Raghavendra D Prabhu
2011-07-05 14:13 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2011-07-05 14:13 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk [this message]
2011-07-05 14:13 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2011-07-05 14:27 ` [TOME] " Raghavendra D Prabhu
2011-07-05 14:48 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2011-07-05 14:48 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2011-07-05 14:48 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2011-07-05 21:32 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2011-07-05 21:32 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2011-07-06 8:30 ` [Xen-devel] " Ian Campbell
2011-07-06 8:30 ` Ian Campbell
2011-07-07 15:46 ` Raghavendra D Prabhu
2011-07-07 15:46 ` Raghavendra D Prabhu
2011-07-07 16:24 ` [Xen-devel] " Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2011-07-07 16:24 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2011-07-07 19:48 ` [Xen-devel] " Raghavendra D Prabhu
2011-07-07 19:48 ` Raghavendra D Prabhu
2011-07-07 20:09 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2011-07-07 21:04 ` Raghavendra D Prabhu
2011-07-08 20:26 ` [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] Modpost section mismatch fix (for platform-pci-unplug.c) Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2011-07-08 20:26 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2011-07-09 16:29 ` [TOME] " Raghavendra D Prabhu
2011-07-09 16:29 ` Raghavendra D Prabhu
2011-07-11 10:47 ` Stefano Stabellini
2011-07-11 10:47 ` Stefano Stabellini
2011-07-07 21:04 ` [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] Modpost section mismatch fix Raghavendra D Prabhu
2011-07-07 20:09 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2011-07-07 16:24 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2011-07-05 14:27 ` [TOME] " Raghavendra D Prabhu
2011-07-04 22:16 ` Raghavendra D Prabhu
2011-07-04 8:49 ` Ian Campbell
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2011-07-03 23:25 Raghavendra D Prabhu
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20110705141323.GG2972@dumpdata.com \
--to=konrad.wilk@oracle.com \
--cc=ijc@hellion.org.uk \
--cc=jeremy.fitzhardinge@citrix.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rprabhu@wnohang.net \
--cc=virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xensource.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.