From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753334AbZALONa (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jan 2009 09:13:30 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751674AbZALONU (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jan 2009 09:13:20 -0500 Received: from pfepb.post.tele.dk ([195.41.46.236]:41328 "EHLO pfepb.post.tele.dk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751571AbZALONU (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jan 2009 09:13:20 -0500 Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 15:14:57 +0100 From: Sam Ravnborg To: Uwe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleine-K=F6nig?= Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: wrong usage of __devexit_p and __exit_p Message-ID: <20090112141457.GA11777@uranus.ravnborg.org> References: <20090112135057.GA10250@pengutronix.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20090112135057.GA10250@pengutronix.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 02:50:57PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > Hello, > > I found several drivers that use __devexit_p and __exit_p on functions > that don't live in .devexit.text or .exit.text resp. > > The impact is either that these functions use memory without being used > or that they don't link. > > I send 24 patches as a reply to this mail. I choosed to move the > functions into the respective function instead of using the right > __{dev,}exit_p wrapper because it seems to me to have less impact. > > I didn't made the effort to find out the right people to Cc: but I hope > that Andrew takes care of that :-) Did you check that this did not introduce any new Section mismatch warnings? We have seen several __exit annotated functions that was used from __init annotated code or even from normal code. Thus the __exit annotation was wrong in these cases. Sam