* dubious section mismatch test (was Re: [PULL] soc-camera: one commit as v4l2-dev preparation) [not found] ` <20090509062726.22d18182@pedra.chehab.org> @ 2009-05-09 16:13 ` Guennadi Liakhovetski 2009-05-09 16:54 ` Sam Ravnborg 0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: Guennadi Liakhovetski @ 2009-05-09 16:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab Cc: Linux Media Mailing List, linux-kernel, sam, linux-kbuild On Sat, 9 May 2009, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > WARNING: /home/v4l/master/v4l/soc_camera.o(.data+0x0): Section mismatch in reference from the variable soc_camera_pdrv to the function .devinit.text:soc_camera_pdrv_probe() > The variable soc_camera_pdrv references > the function __devinit soc_camera_pdrv_probe() > If the reference is valid then annotate the > variable with __init* (see linux/init.h) or name the variable: > *driver, *_template, *_timer, *_sht, *_ops, *_probe, *_probe_one, *_console, > > WARNING: /home/v4l/master/v4l/soc_camera.o(.data+0x8): Section mismatch in reference from the variable soc_camera_pdrv to the function .devexit.text:soc_camera_pdrv_remove() > The variable soc_camera_pdrv references > the function __devexit soc_camera_pdrv_remove() > If the reference is valid then annotate the > variable with __exit* (see linux/init.h) or name the variable: > *driver, *_template, *_timer, *_sht, *_ops, *_probe, *_probe_one, *_console, FWIW, I find this test dubious. Matching on symbol names doesn't seem like a good idea to me. Can we introduce a new marker instead something like static struct whatever_driver __driver driver = { .probe = my_probe, .remove = __exit_p(my_remove), }; to put them in a new special section? Or is there a better solution? Thanks Guennadi --- Guennadi Liakhovetski, Ph.D. Freelance Open-Source Software Developer http://www.open-technology.de/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: dubious section mismatch test (was Re: [PULL] soc-camera: one commit as v4l2-dev preparation) 2009-05-09 16:13 ` dubious section mismatch test (was Re: [PULL] soc-camera: one commit as v4l2-dev preparation) Guennadi Liakhovetski @ 2009-05-09 16:54 ` Sam Ravnborg 2009-05-10 18:33 ` Guennadi Liakhovetski 0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: Sam Ravnborg @ 2009-05-09 16:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Guennadi Liakhovetski Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab, Linux Media Mailing List, linux-kernel, linux-kbuild On Sat, May 09, 2009 at 06:13:13PM +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > On Sat, 9 May 2009, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > > WARNING: /home/v4l/master/v4l/soc_camera.o(.data+0x0): Section mismatch in reference from the variable soc_camera_pdrv to the function .devinit.text:soc_camera_pdrv_probe() > > The variable soc_camera_pdrv references > > the function __devinit soc_camera_pdrv_probe() > > If the reference is valid then annotate the > > variable with __init* (see linux/init.h) or name the variable: > > *driver, *_template, *_timer, *_sht, *_ops, *_probe, *_probe_one, *_console, > > > > WARNING: /home/v4l/master/v4l/soc_camera.o(.data+0x8): Section mismatch in reference from the variable soc_camera_pdrv to the function .devexit.text:soc_camera_pdrv_remove() > > The variable soc_camera_pdrv references > > the function __devexit soc_camera_pdrv_remove() > > If the reference is valid then annotate the > > variable with __exit* (see linux/init.h) or name the variable: > > *driver, *_template, *_timer, *_sht, *_ops, *_probe, *_probe_one, *_console, > > FWIW, I find this test dubious. Matching on symbol names doesn't seem like > a good idea to me. Can we introduce a new marker instead something like > > static struct whatever_driver __driver driver = { > .probe = my_probe, > .remove = __exit_p(my_remove), > }; > > to put them in a new special section? Or is there a better solution? We already have that: __refdata would be your choice in this case. Sam ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: dubious section mismatch test (was Re: [PULL] soc-camera: one commit as v4l2-dev preparation) 2009-05-09 16:54 ` Sam Ravnborg @ 2009-05-10 18:33 ` Guennadi Liakhovetski 2009-06-05 22:19 ` Sam Ravnborg 0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: Guennadi Liakhovetski @ 2009-05-10 18:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Sam Ravnborg Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab, Linux Media Mailing List, linux-kernel, linux-kbuild On Sat, 9 May 2009, Sam Ravnborg wrote: > On Sat, May 09, 2009 at 06:13:13PM +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > > On Sat, 9 May 2009, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > > > > WARNING: /home/v4l/master/v4l/soc_camera.o(.data+0x0): Section mismatch in reference from the variable soc_camera_pdrv to the function .devinit.text:soc_camera_pdrv_probe() > > > The variable soc_camera_pdrv references > > > the function __devinit soc_camera_pdrv_probe() > > > If the reference is valid then annotate the > > > variable with __init* (see linux/init.h) or name the variable: > > > *driver, *_template, *_timer, *_sht, *_ops, *_probe, *_probe_one, *_console, > > > > > > WARNING: /home/v4l/master/v4l/soc_camera.o(.data+0x8): Section mismatch in reference from the variable soc_camera_pdrv to the function .devexit.text:soc_camera_pdrv_remove() > > > The variable soc_camera_pdrv references > > > the function __devexit soc_camera_pdrv_remove() > > > If the reference is valid then annotate the > > > variable with __exit* (see linux/init.h) or name the variable: > > > *driver, *_template, *_timer, *_sht, *_ops, *_probe, *_probe_one, *_console, > > > > FWIW, I find this test dubious. Matching on symbol names doesn't seem like > > a good idea to me. Can we introduce a new marker instead something like > > > > static struct whatever_driver __driver driver = { > > .probe = my_probe, > > .remove = __exit_p(my_remove), > > }; > > > > to put them in a new special section? Or is there a better solution? > > We already have that: > __refdata would be your choice in this case. Aha, great! Then also the warning text should be changed, shouldn't it? Thanks Guennadi --- Guennadi Liakhovetski, Ph.D. Freelance Open-Source Software Developer http://www.open-technology.de/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: dubious section mismatch test (was Re: [PULL] soc-camera: one commit as v4l2-dev preparation) 2009-05-10 18:33 ` Guennadi Liakhovetski @ 2009-06-05 22:19 ` Sam Ravnborg 0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread From: Sam Ravnborg @ 2009-06-05 22:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Guennadi Liakhovetski Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab, Linux Media Mailing List, linux-kernel, linux-kbuild On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 08:33:03PM +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > On Sat, 9 May 2009, Sam Ravnborg wrote: > > > On Sat, May 09, 2009 at 06:13:13PM +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > > > On Sat, 9 May 2009, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > > > > > > WARNING: /home/v4l/master/v4l/soc_camera.o(.data+0x0): Section mismatch in reference from the variable soc_camera_pdrv to the function .devinit.text:soc_camera_pdrv_probe() > > > > The variable soc_camera_pdrv references > > > > the function __devinit soc_camera_pdrv_probe() > > > > If the reference is valid then annotate the > > > > variable with __init* (see linux/init.h) or name the variable: > > > > *driver, *_template, *_timer, *_sht, *_ops, *_probe, *_probe_one, *_console, > > > > > > > > WARNING: /home/v4l/master/v4l/soc_camera.o(.data+0x8): Section mismatch in reference from the variable soc_camera_pdrv to the function .devexit.text:soc_camera_pdrv_remove() > > > > The variable soc_camera_pdrv references > > > > the function __devexit soc_camera_pdrv_remove() > > > > If the reference is valid then annotate the > > > > variable with __exit* (see linux/init.h) or name the variable: > > > > *driver, *_template, *_timer, *_sht, *_ops, *_probe, *_probe_one, *_console, > > > > > > FWIW, I find this test dubious. Matching on symbol names doesn't seem like > > > a good idea to me. Can we introduce a new marker instead something like > > > > > > static struct whatever_driver __driver driver = { > > > .probe = my_probe, > > > .remove = __exit_p(my_remove), > > > }; > > > > > > to put them in a new special section? Or is there a better solution? > > > > We already have that: > > __refdata would be your choice in this case. > > Aha, great! Then also the warning text should be changed, shouldn't it? Yep - included __refdata in the warning now. Sam ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2009-06-05 22:17 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <Pine.LNX.4.64.0905071841331.9460@axis700.grange>
[not found] ` <20090509062726.22d18182@pedra.chehab.org>
2009-05-09 16:13 ` dubious section mismatch test (was Re: [PULL] soc-camera: one commit as v4l2-dev preparation) Guennadi Liakhovetski
2009-05-09 16:54 ` Sam Ravnborg
2009-05-10 18:33 ` Guennadi Liakhovetski
2009-06-05 22:19 ` Sam Ravnborg
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox