Re: [PATCH] power: reset: at91: mark at91_wakeup_status non-__init

[Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@microchip.com>]

On 13/12/2023 at 08:25, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 02:50:02PM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 10:46:49PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>> From: Arnd Bergmann<arnd@arndb.de>
>>>
>>> Two copies of the at91_wakeup_status() function are called by the
>>> respective probe() callbacks and are marked __init, but the probe
>>> functions are no longer annotated that way. This works with gcc because
>>> the functions always get inlined, but clang keeps them separate, which
>>> can lead to executing freed memory:
>>>
>>> WARNING: modpost: vmlinux: section mismatch in reference: at91_poweroff_probe+0x80 (section: .text) -> at91_wakeup_status (section: .init.text)
>>> WARNING: modpost: vmlinux: section mismatch in reference: at91_shdwc_probe+0xcc (section: .text) -> at91_wakeup_status (section: .init.text)
>>>
>>> Drop the incorrect annotation on these.
>>>
>>> Fixes: 099806de68b7 ("power: reset: at91-poweroff: Stop using module_platform_driver_probe()")
>>> Fixes: dde74a5de817 ("power: reset: at91-sama5d2_shdwc: Stop using module_platform_driver_probe()")
>>> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann<arnd@arndb.de>
>> Thanks, I sent the same change three weeks ago at this point:
>>
>> https://lore.kernel.org/20231120-fix-at91-modpost-warnings-v1-1-813671933863@kernel.org/
>>
>> Your commit message is a little better than mine and I don't really care
>> which one goes in but it would be good if this could get cleared up
>> soon...
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Nathan Chancellor<nathan@kernel.org>
> I don't care either. Given the change is identical (Nathan's submission
> even has "index 126e774e210c..93eece027865 100644" which exactly matches
> Arnd's patch), I'll forward my Reviewed-by: tag to here:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Uwe Kleine-König<u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>

Likewise:
Acked-by: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@microchip.com>

Use whichever is preferred.
Regards,
   Nicolas