Re: [PATCH] x86,nmi: Fix section mismatch warnings on 32-bit

[Zhong Li <zhong@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On 06/09/2012 04:51 AM, Don Zickus wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 08:48:00AM -0400, Don Zickus wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 03:43:25PM +0800, Li Zhong wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2012-06-06 at 10:03 -0400, Don Zickus wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 12:14:33PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>> I didn't think it would be compiler dependent as I do not know what
>>>>>> compiler the reporter was using.  I used a RHEL-6 4.4.4 compiler (which
>>>>>> you probably don't have :^) ).
>>>>> Indeed, somehow I failed to see the obvious - it's commit
>>>>> 72b3fb24713755cf9740b403e95aa67ceedf3509 that causes
>>>>> these problems. Instantiating static data like this just doesn't
>>>>> play with any of the pointers passed being into .init.*.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd suggest either open coding register_nmi_handler() (with
>>>>> the static data put into __initdata), or further abstracting it
>>>>> by allowing an optional fifth argument (specifying the section
>>>>> annotation if needed).
>>>> Ah.  Thanks for figuring that out!!  I will post a patch opencoding it.
>>>>
>>> Hi Don,
>>>
>>> How about the following patch, adding an optional fifth argument as Jan
>>> mentioned? We don't need change other users of register_nmi_handler().
>> Ah, ok.  I forgot about the variable args syntax.  That works too.  I give
>> a quick test.
> Apparently I was too slow.  Ingo committed my other patch.  I can ask him
> to revert it and use your smaller/cleaner patch instead?  Or is it big
> deal to keep the other one?
This other way is fine to me, they actually does the same thing.

Sorry for causing the trouble, though I don't remember seeing the 
warnings when converting it to static ...

Thanks,
Zhong
> Cheers,
> Don
>