From: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
ppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build warnings after merge of the final tree (tip treee related)
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 01:24:20 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4C8DDFB4.1020508@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100913143942.7344ada4.sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
On 09/12/2010 09:39 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>
> Your patch fixes some of the warnings, but still leaves these for a
> powerpc allnoconfig build:
>
> WARNING: mm/built-in.o(.text+0x25d80): Section mismatch in reference from the function memblock_double_array() to the function .init.text:memblock_free()
> The function memblock_double_array() references
> the function __init memblock_free().
> This is often because memblock_double_array lacks a __init
> annotation or the annotation of memblock_free is wrong.
>
> WARNING: mm/built-in.o(.text+0x26318): Section mismatch in reference from the function memblock_reserve_reserved_regions() to the function .init.text:memblock_reserve()
> The function memblock_reserve_reserved_regions() references
> the function __init memblock_reserve().
> This is often because memblock_reserve_reserved_regions lacks a __init
> annotation or the annotation of memblock_reserve is wrong.
>
> WARNING: mm/built-in.o(.text+0x26490): Section mismatch in reference from the function memblock_free_reserved_regions() to the function .init.text:memblock_free()
> The function memblock_free_reserved_regions() references
> the function __init memblock_free().
> This is often because memblock_free_reserved_regions lacks a __init
> annotation or the annotation of memblock_free is wrong.
v1 already changed them all to __init_memblock, so we should not have those warnings.
>
> And these for a i386 defconfig build:
>
> WARNING: mm/built-in.o(.text+0x1e261): Section mismatch in reference from the function memblock_is_memory() to the variable .init.data:memblock
> The function memblock_is_memory() references
> the variable __initdata memblock.
> This is often because memblock_is_memory lacks a __initdata
> annotation or the annotation of memblock is wrong.
>
> WARNING: mm/built-in.o(.text+0x1e27f): Section mismatch in reference from the function memblock_is_region_memory() to the variable .init.data:memblock
> The function memblock_is_region_memory() references
> the variable __initdata memblock.
> This is often because memblock_is_region_memory lacks a __initdata
> annotation or the annotation of memblock is wrong.
>
you must have old gcc, those functions are not used with i386.
[PATCH -v2] memblock: Fix section mismatch warning
for arches that use memblock other than x86
-v2: more with memblock_is_meory()
Reported-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu <Yinghai@kernel.org>
---
mm/memblock.c | 14 +++++++-------
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
Index: linux-2.6/mm/memblock.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/mm/memblock.c
+++ linux-2.6/mm/memblock.c
@@ -125,8 +125,8 @@ static phys_addr_t __init memblock_find_
return MEMBLOCK_ERROR;
}
-static phys_addr_t __init memblock_find_base(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align,
- phys_addr_t start, phys_addr_t end)
+static phys_addr_t __init_memblock memblock_find_base(phys_addr_t size,
+ phys_addr_t align, phys_addr_t start, phys_addr_t end)
{
long i;
@@ -439,12 +439,12 @@ long __init_memblock memblock_remove(phy
return __memblock_remove(&memblock.memory, base, size);
}
-long __init memblock_free(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size)
+long __init_memblock memblock_free(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size)
{
return __memblock_remove(&memblock.reserved, base, size);
}
-long __init memblock_reserve(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size)
+long __init_memblock memblock_reserve(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size)
{
struct memblock_type *_rgn = &memblock.reserved;
@@ -671,12 +671,12 @@ int __init memblock_is_reserved(phys_add
return memblock_search(&memblock.reserved, addr) != -1;
}
-int memblock_is_memory(phys_addr_t addr)
+int __init_memblock memblock_is_memory(phys_addr_t addr)
{
return memblock_search(&memblock.memory, addr) != -1;
}
-int memblock_is_region_memory(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size)
+int __init_memblock memblock_is_region_memory(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size)
{
int idx = memblock_search(&memblock.reserved, base);
@@ -693,7 +693,7 @@ int __init_memblock memblock_is_region_r
}
-void __init memblock_set_current_limit(phys_addr_t limit)
+void __init_memblock memblock_set_current_limit(phys_addr_t limit)
{
memblock.current_limit = limit;
}
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-next@vger.kernel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
ppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build warnings after merge of the final tree (tip treee related)
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 01:24:20 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4C8DDFB4.1020508@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100913143942.7344ada4.sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
On 09/12/2010 09:39 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>
> Your patch fixes some of the warnings, but still leaves these for a
> powerpc allnoconfig build:
>
> WARNING: mm/built-in.o(.text+0x25d80): Section mismatch in reference from the function memblock_double_array() to the function .init.text:memblock_free()
> The function memblock_double_array() references
> the function __init memblock_free().
> This is often because memblock_double_array lacks a __init
> annotation or the annotation of memblock_free is wrong.
>
> WARNING: mm/built-in.o(.text+0x26318): Section mismatch in reference from the function memblock_reserve_reserved_regions() to the function .init.text:memblock_reserve()
> The function memblock_reserve_reserved_regions() references
> the function __init memblock_reserve().
> This is often because memblock_reserve_reserved_regions lacks a __init
> annotation or the annotation of memblock_reserve is wrong.
>
> WARNING: mm/built-in.o(.text+0x26490): Section mismatch in reference from the function memblock_free_reserved_regions() to the function .init.text:memblock_free()
> The function memblock_free_reserved_regions() references
> the function __init memblock_free().
> This is often because memblock_free_reserved_regions lacks a __init
> annotation or the annotation of memblock_free is wrong.
v1 already changed them all to __init_memblock, so we should not have those warnings.
>
> And these for a i386 defconfig build:
>
> WARNING: mm/built-in.o(.text+0x1e261): Section mismatch in reference from the function memblock_is_memory() to the variable .init.data:memblock
> The function memblock_is_memory() references
> the variable __initdata memblock.
> This is often because memblock_is_memory lacks a __initdata
> annotation or the annotation of memblock is wrong.
>
> WARNING: mm/built-in.o(.text+0x1e27f): Section mismatch in reference from the function memblock_is_region_memory() to the variable .init.data:memblock
> The function memblock_is_region_memory() references
> the variable __initdata memblock.
> This is often because memblock_is_region_memory lacks a __initdata
> annotation or the annotation of memblock is wrong.
>
you must have old gcc, those functions are not used with i386.
[PATCH -v2] memblock: Fix section mismatch warning
for arches that use memblock other than x86
-v2: more with memblock_is_meory()
Reported-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu <Yinghai@kernel.org>
---
mm/memblock.c | 14 +++++++-------
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
Index: linux-2.6/mm/memblock.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/mm/memblock.c
+++ linux-2.6/mm/memblock.c
@@ -125,8 +125,8 @@ static phys_addr_t __init memblock_find_
return MEMBLOCK_ERROR;
}
-static phys_addr_t __init memblock_find_base(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align,
- phys_addr_t start, phys_addr_t end)
+static phys_addr_t __init_memblock memblock_find_base(phys_addr_t size,
+ phys_addr_t align, phys_addr_t start, phys_addr_t end)
{
long i;
@@ -439,12 +439,12 @@ long __init_memblock memblock_remove(phy
return __memblock_remove(&memblock.memory, base, size);
}
-long __init memblock_free(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size)
+long __init_memblock memblock_free(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size)
{
return __memblock_remove(&memblock.reserved, base, size);
}
-long __init memblock_reserve(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size)
+long __init_memblock memblock_reserve(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size)
{
struct memblock_type *_rgn = &memblock.reserved;
@@ -671,12 +671,12 @@ int __init memblock_is_reserved(phys_add
return memblock_search(&memblock.reserved, addr) != -1;
}
-int memblock_is_memory(phys_addr_t addr)
+int __init_memblock memblock_is_memory(phys_addr_t addr)
{
return memblock_search(&memblock.memory, addr) != -1;
}
-int memblock_is_region_memory(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size)
+int __init_memblock memblock_is_region_memory(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size)
{
int idx = memblock_search(&memblock.reserved, base);
@@ -693,7 +693,7 @@ int __init_memblock memblock_is_region_r
}
-void __init memblock_set_current_limit(phys_addr_t limit)
+void __init_memblock memblock_set_current_limit(phys_addr_t limit)
{
memblock.current_limit = limit;
}
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-09-13 8:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-09-13 3:27 linux-next: build warnings after merge of the final tree (tip treee related) Stephen Rothwell
2010-09-13 3:27 ` Stephen Rothwell
2010-09-13 4:14 ` Yinghai Lu
2010-09-13 4:14 ` Yinghai Lu
2010-09-13 4:39 ` Stephen Rothwell
2010-09-13 4:39 ` Stephen Rothwell
2010-09-13 8:24 ` Yinghai Lu [this message]
2010-09-13 8:24 ` Yinghai Lu
2010-09-14 4:50 ` Stephen Rothwell
2010-09-14 4:50 ` Stephen Rothwell
2010-09-14 23:00 ` Yinghai Lu
2010-09-14 23:00 ` Yinghai Lu
2010-09-15 0:29 ` Stephen Rothwell
2010-09-15 0:29 ` Stephen Rothwell
2010-09-15 1:33 ` Yinghai Lu
2010-09-15 1:33 ` Yinghai Lu
2010-09-15 4:39 ` Stephen Rothwell
2010-09-15 4:39 ` Stephen Rothwell
2010-09-15 5:00 ` Stephen Rothwell
2010-09-15 5:00 ` Stephen Rothwell
2010-09-15 9:25 ` Ingo Molnar
2010-09-15 9:25 ` Ingo Molnar
2010-09-15 20:05 ` [PATCH -v4] memblock: Fix section mismatch warnings Yinghai Lu
2010-09-15 20:05 ` Yinghai Lu
2010-09-16 14:43 ` [tip:core/memblock] " tip-bot for Yinghai Lu
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=4C8DDFB4.1020508@kernel.org \
--to=yinghai@kernel.org \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-next@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=sfr@canb.auug.org.au \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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.