| Message ID | 20110629130711.GA15649@linux-mips.org |
|---|---|
| State | RFC, archived |
| Delegated to: | David Miller |
| Headers | show |
On Wed, 2011-06-29 at 14:07 +0100, Ralf Baechle wrote: > On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 10:12:57PM -0700, David Miller wrote: > > > commit 948252cb9e01d65a89ecadf67be5018351eee15e > > Author: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net> > > Date: Tue May 31 19:27:48 2011 -0700 > > > > Revert "net: fix section mismatches" > > > > This reverts commit e5cb966c0838e4da43a3b0751bdcac7fe719f7b4. > > > > It causes new build regressions with gcc-4.2 which is > > pretty common on non-x86 platforms. > > > > Reported-by: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> > > Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net> > > > > and postings that led to this revert including: > > > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=130653748205263&w=2 > > Thanks for the pointers; I looked into it a bit deeper and found that the > construct which hppa64-linux-gcc 4.2.4 doesn't like is the combination of > const and __devinitconst __devinitdata. > > My patches are minimalistic and don't do any constification and seem to > work fine for PA-RISC. > > A possible alternative to allow the use of Michał's reverted patch would > be to conditionalize the definition of __devinitconst. There is no > user of __devexitconst so I left that unchanged. To be honest, my own take on this is that, apart from the compiler cockups trying to do read only annotations, which affect various versions of gcc not just the parisc ones, the _devX annotations are pretty pointless. They only really do something in the non-hotplug case, so since 95% of the world seems to use hotplug now and the other 5% doesn't care that much about the odd page of memory (which you rarely get, since modules sections are accumulated per module, not aggregate), I'd just favour stripping __init and __exit where there's a problem. I think we should simply concentrate on __init and __exit; that's where most of the discard value lies and stop expending huge efforts on the __devX stuff which adds huge complexity for no real gain. James -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 08:58:19AM -0500, James Bottomley wrote: > I think we should simply concentrate on __init and __exit; that's where > most of the discard value lies and stop expending huge efforts on the > __devX stuff which adds huge complexity for no real gain. I have long felt that those __devX markings should just go away as they cause nothing but problems and have no real gain as you point out. greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 08:14:24AM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 08:58:19AM -0500, James Bottomley wrote: > > I think we should simply concentrate on __init and __exit; that's where > > most of the discard value lies and stop expending huge efforts on the > > __devX stuff which adds huge complexity for no real gain. > > I have long felt that those __devX markings should just go away as they > cause nothing but problems and have no real gain as you point out. The suggestion to do that has been floated around before but seems to have missed sufficient thrust. I'm all for it; the manual tagging with __devX has not been very efficient on developer time. I just want to see meaningful warnings again over all that noise the current mechanisn may produce. Ralf -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Wed, 2011-06-29 at 17:19 +0100, Ralf Baechle wrote: > On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 08:14:24AM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 08:58:19AM -0500, James Bottomley wrote: > > > I think we should simply concentrate on __init and __exit; that's where > > > most of the discard value lies and stop expending huge efforts on the > > > __devX stuff which adds huge complexity for no real gain. > > > > I have long felt that those __devX markings should just go away as they > > cause nothing but problems and have no real gain as you point out. > > The suggestion to do that has been floated around before but seems to > have missed sufficient thrust. I'm all for it; the manual tagging with > __devX has not been very efficient on developer time. I just want to see > meaningful warnings again over all that noise the current mechanisn may > produce. For me, just go ahead and fix the actual problems: so _init sections and _exit sections that are used from the main body, just strip the annotations, don't try to change them for _devX ones. Thanks, James -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/include/linux/init.h b/include/linux/init.h index 577671c..e12fd85 100644 --- a/include/linux/init.h +++ b/include/linux/init.h @@ -84,7 +84,15 @@ /* Used for HOTPLUG */ #define __devinit __section(.devinit.text) __cold #define __devinitdata __section(.devinit.data) +#if defined __GNUC__ && (__GNUC__ == 4) && (__GNUC_MINOR__ == 2) +/* + * GCC 4.2 will sometimes throw an error if the combination of const and + * __devinitconst is being used. As a workaround make __devinitconst a noop + */ +#define __devinitconst +#else #define __devinitconst __section(.devinit.rodata) +#endif #define __devexit __section(.devexit.text) __exitused __cold #define __devexitdata __section(.devexit.data) #define __devexitconst __section(.devexit.rodata)