Hi Sam, On 6/12/07, Sam Ravnborg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 07:39:30PM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote: > On 6/12/07, Jan Beulich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> 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. > >> > >>Hmm, but that's not how things are, presently. __exit marked > >>functions are simply not linked into the kernel (when that module > >>is being built-in) at all -- this "discard" happens at _build time_ > >>(to save on kernel image size). > > > >Not really, at least not for i386 and x86-64 - see their vmlinux.lds.S > >files. > > For those archs, yes, you're right that modpost should be > special-casing (based on arch) before complaining for > .init -> .exit references. No. References from __init to __exit is wrong independent on architecture.
[...]
So for the latter we will have an oops where we for the first have a build time failure.
Is that (oops possibility on i386) really true? (.exit.{text, data}) is also between __init_begin and __init_end and hence will be discarded _along_ with (not before) .init.{text, data} during run-time I think, which means .init -> .exit reference modpost warnings (on said archs) are truly bogus ...
powerpc discards them at buildtime, i386 at runtime.
Yup, we were only discussing possibility that modpost not complain about .init -> .exit references that will never go oops (because the arch guarantees that). Satyam - 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/