From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <sheflin@newagemicro.com>
Received: from server196.onecontrol.com (ip-66-129-110-196.name-host.com
	[66.129.110.196])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(Client did not present a certificate)
	by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32C23DDE05
	for <linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org>;
	Sat, 23 Feb 2008 11:37:46 +1100 (EST)
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 19:38:02 -0500
To: Josh Boyer <jwboyer@gmail.com>
From: Steve Heflin <sheflin@newagemicro.com>
Subject: Re: MODPOST section mismatches
In-Reply-To: <20080222183025.280b6ea3@vader.jdub.homelinux.org>
References: <20080221213313.97814DDF55@ozlabs.org>
	<20080222164210.48628DE0A9@ozlabs.org>
	<20080222145224.7349cf36@weaponx>
	<20080222222637.C82EADDF0F@ozlabs.org>
	<20080222163625.29433d12@weaponx>
	<20080222230722.B7FDBDDE45@ozlabs.org>
	<20080222183025.280b6ea3@vader.jdub.homelinux.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Message-Id: <20080223003747.32C23DDE05@ozlabs.org>
Cc: linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org
List-Id: Linux on Embedded PowerPC Developers Mail List
	<linuxppc-embedded.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-embedded>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-embedded-request@ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-embedded>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-embedded-request@ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-embedded>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-embedded-request@ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>

At 07:30 PM 2/22/2008, you wrote:
>On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 18:07:37 -0500
>Steve Heflin <sheflin@newagemicro.com> wrote:
>
> > At 05:36 PM 2/22/2008, you wrote:
> > >On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 17:26:52 -0500
> > >Steve Heflin <sheflin@newagemicro.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > FLAT_MEM is one of the configuration options:
> > > >        CONFIG_ARCH_FLATMEM_ENABLE=y
> > >
> > >That has to do with NUMA stuff.  It really doesn't have much bearing on
> > >the section warnings.
> >
> > ah, thanks for setting me straight. I thought it meant that
> > everything existed in a flat address space and existed in memory at
> > the same time, and therefore the different section warnings might 
> not apply.
>
>Nah.  The section warnings come about because if something is marked
>__init but referenced in a function that isn't then an oops could occur
>because the __init sections are discarded after a certain point in the
>kernel boot.  The same is true for __devinit, etc.
>
>So the section warnings are still bugs that need fixing, but they're
>orthogonal to the memory model for the most part.
>
>josh

Isn't there a way to keep the __init sections from being discarded 
such that I can run it without an oops occurring?

thanks for your help!
Steve