>> The cacheinfo_cpu_notifier itself is called out from _cpu_down() which >> is ... yep, *not* __cpuinit (and obviously *cannot* be so). _cpu_down() >> is called from cpu_down() which is (thankfully!) protected inside >> #ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU, so we've /just about/ escaped trouble >> so far, but another of it's callers is disable_nonboot_cpus() which does >> *not* depend on HOTPLUG_CPU, but is #ifdef'ed inside SUSPEND_SMP >> (gargh!) instead, and ... is _not_ __cpuinit either (obviously, again). > >Wait, SUSPEND_SMP again depends on HOTPLUG_CPU, so there >are no issues here in marking cache_remove_dev() __cpuexit >(which effectively simply becomes #ifdef HOTPLUG_CPU) as all >callsites that call out the notifier with CPU_DEAD/FROZEN are also >going to be disabled. [ Ok, looks like using __cpuexit as this kind of >pseudo-#ifdef HOTPLUG_CPU is a standard practice? ] > >But modpost will still complain (bogus warning) about calling __exit >from __init (when HOTPLUG_CPU=n) for cacheinfo_cpu_callback() >calling cache_remove_dev(), no?
No, it doesn't, at least not for me. And from a purely theoretical perspective I don't think such references should be considered bad - .exit.* should be discarded together with .init.* if unloading is impossible (built-in or configured off), not before module/kernel initialization. This is specifically because init code may want to utilize exit code in case of initialization failure. Jan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
