From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arianna Avanzini Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] tty, serial, 8250: remove __init from function serial8250_console_setup() Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 23:18:33 +0100 Message-ID: <20141125221832.GA1464@gmail.com> References: <1416506456-2126-1-git-send-email-avanzini.arianna@gmail.com> <20141125175121.GA32573@kroah.com> Reply-To: avanzini.arianna@gmail.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20141125175121.GA32573@kroah.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Greg KH Cc: jslaby@suse.cz, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-serial@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-serial@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 09:51:21AM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 07:00:56PM +0100, Arianna Avanzini wrote: > > Some RS232 adapters handled by this driver are hotpluggable. The function > > serial8250_console_setup() is called during device init and is defined with > > the __init macro. In case the driver is built-in, hotplugging the device after > > the initialization phase has been completed (and the related memory has been > > freed) results in a kernel crash. > > This commit fixes the issue by removing __init from the function definition. > > > > Signed-off-by: Arianna Avanzini > > --- > > drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_core.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_core.c b/drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_core.c > > index ca5cfdc..ca8108d 100644 > > --- a/drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_core.c > > +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_core.c > > @@ -3237,7 +3237,7 @@ serial8250_console_write(struct console *co, const char *s, unsigned int count) > > serial8250_rpm_put(up); > > } > > > > -static int __init serial8250_console_setup(struct console *co, char *options) > > +static int serial8250_console_setup(struct console *co, char *options) > > { > > struct uart_port *port; > > int baud = 9600; > > -- > > 2.1.3 > > I don't apply "RFC" patches as it implies you don't even know if this > works or not. I was not aware of the fact that the "RFC" tag had such an implication; thank you for pointing that out. As I have already tested the patch and it appears to be effective, I'll resend it and drop the "RFC" tag. Thank you, Arianna -- /* * Arianna Avanzini * avanzini.arianna@gmail.com * http://ava.webhop.me */