At Tue, 17 Jul 2007 18:48:46 +0200,
Sam Ravnborg wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 05:40:15PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > At Tue, 17 Jul 2007 17:32:36 +0200,
> > Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 05:16:13PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > > > At Tue, 17 Jul 2007 17:14:32 +0200,
> > > > Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 04:52:12PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > > > > > At Tue, 17 Jul 2007 15:02:30 +0200,
> > > > > > Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 10:02:48AM +0200, Domen Puncer wrote:
> > > > > > > > Introduce __init_exit, which is useful ie. for drivers that call
> > > > > > > > cleanup functions when they fail in __init functions.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is wrong.
> > > > > > > On arm (just one example of several) the __exit section are
> > > > > > > discarded
> > > > > > > at buildtime so any reference from __init to __exit will cause the
> > > > > > > linker to error out.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hmm, from what I see, it adds __init to the function. There is no
> > > > > > reference to __exit.
> > > > >
> > > > > The cleanup functions are marked __exit in the referenced case.
> > > >
> > > > My understanding is that it's the very purpose of this patch --
> > > > change the mark from __exit to __init_exit for such clean-up
> > > > functions.
> > >
> > > And that is wrong.
> >
> > You misunderstood. What I meant is the case like this:
> >
> > static void __init_exit cleanup()
> > {
> > ...
> > }
> >
> > static void __init foo_init()
> > {
> > if (error)
> > cleanup();
> > }
> >
> > static void __exit foo_exit()
> > {
> > cleanup();
> > }
> >
> > Currently, there is no proper way to mark cleanup(). Neither __init,
> > __exit, __devinit nor __devexit can be used there.
>
> Then you get the annotation sorted out so cleanup() get discarded in the
> built-in case. But you leave no room for automated tools to detect this.
>
> If this is really necessary (and I daught) then a specific section should be
> dedicated for this usage.
>
> We have lot of issues with current __init/__exit, __devinit/__devexit,
> __cpuint/__cpuexit
> and introducing more of the kind does not help it.
> So even if it saves a few bytes in some odd cases the added complaxity is
> IMHO not worth it.
Well, I don't think it's a few bytes and not so odd, but I agree that
this solution isn't the best way. And, I now remember that this won't
work anyway, too. Calling __init from __exit also causes error...
BTW, this reminds me why we have to add annotations for each
subisdiary function manually. A tool to parse the code statically and
give the proper annotations/hints would be really nice.
Takashi
-
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/
