[PATCH] b44: fix section mismatch warnings in b44.c

[PATCH] b44: fix section mismatch warnings in b44.c

[Nikola Pajkovsky]

From: Nikola Pajkovsky <n.pajkovsky@gmail.com>

Signed-off-by: Nikola Pajkovsky <n.pajkovsky@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/b44.c |    2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/b44.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/b44.c
index 66f53c7..46b8b7d8 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/b44.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/b44.c
@@ -2338,7 +2338,7 @@ static inline int __init b44_pci_init(void)
 	return err;
 }
 
-static inline void __exit b44_pci_exit(void)
+static inline void b44_pci_exit(void)
 {
 #ifdef CONFIG_B44_PCI
 	ssb_pcihost_unregister(&b44_pci_driver);
-- 
1.7.9.1.244.gb0d66b

Re: [PATCH] b44: fix section mismatch warnings in b44.c

[Dan Carpenter]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 780 bytes --]

On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 03:45:54PM +0100, Nikola Pajkovsky wrote:
> From: Nikola Pajkovsky <n.pajkovsky@gmail.com>
> 

This changelog is not really helpful.

Why did you remove an __exit anotation instead changing the callers?
Obviously I looked at the code, so I can answer that question, but I
shouldn't have to.  It should be explained in the changelog.

Sometimes I add in information about when the error message was
introduced.

It might also be nice to mention what the bad effects of this
problem are.

> Signed-off-by: Nikola Pajkovsky <n.pajkovsky@gmail.com>
                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You're sending the patch from your redhat address; it's best to sign
it with the redhat address as well.

regards,
dan carpenter


[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] b44: fix section mismatch warnings in b44.c

[Nikola Pajkovsky]

Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com> writes:

> On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 03:45:54PM +0100, Nikola Pajkovsky wrote:
>> From: Nikola Pajkovsky <n.pajkovsky@gmail.com>
>> 
>
> This changelog is not really helpful.
>
> Why did you remove an __exit anotation instead changing the callers?
> Obviously I looked at the code, so I can answer that question, but I
> shouldn't have to.  It should be explained in the changelog.

I will rephrase comment

> Sometimes I add in information about when the error message was
> introduced.
>
> It might also be nice to mention what the bad effects of this
> problem are.
>
>> Signed-off-by: Nikola Pajkovsky <n.pajkovsky@gmail.com>
>                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> You're sending the patch from your redhat address; it's best to sign
> it with the redhat address as well.

oops, it should be from gmail

-- 
Nikola