>
> Arguably all the existing linker scripts should be made more consistent I
> suppose. Currently all the {init,exit} annotations are handled separately
> by each architecture, so this would be no exception. If you have a
> proposal as to how to do it cleanly, people will certainly apprecia
>
> As long as the modpost warnings are just warnings they will often be
> missed at compile time.
The plans for the modpost warnings are more or less:
- Let all __init, __cpuinit, __meminit etc use dedicated sections
no matter the actual configuration.
Use ifdeffery in the .lds files to place s
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> What is the actual benefit here expressed in real numbers?
> For the __init/__exit notation that is yet only partially correct
> we often see corner cases where one ask if it is really worth it.
> Adding the discard functionality for strings seems like a
On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 05:57:38PM +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> > - Most of the string annotations are (naturally) dev{init,exit}
> > annotations, and bugs there are therefore in configurations that have
> > only extremely low testing coverage d
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> - Most of the string annotations are (naturally) dev{init,exit}
> annotations, and bugs there are therefore in configurations that have
> only extremely low testing coverage during -rc.
> - I'm counting 22 annotations in the driver Maciej converted as
On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 06:52:10PM +0100, Ralf Baechle wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 07:19:38PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> > I have an objection against this approach:
> >
> > Our __*init*/__*exit* annotations are already a constant source of bugs,
> > and adding more pifalls (e.g. forgott
On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 07:19:38PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> I have an objection against this approach:
>
> Our __*init*/__*exit* annotations are already a constant source of bugs,
> and adding more pifalls (e.g. forgotten removal of _i()/_e() when a
> function is no longer __*init*/__*exit*)
On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 05:50:01PM +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> We currently have infrastructure for discardable text and data, but no
> such thing for strings. This is especially notable for inline strings
> such as ones used by printk() which are left behind resident in the memory
> thr
On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 05:50:01PM +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> We currently have infrastructure for discardable text and data, but no
> such thing for strings. This is especially notable for inline strings
> such as ones used by printk() which are left behind resident in the memory
> th
We currently have infrastructure for discardable text and data, but no
such thing for strings. This is especially notable for inline strings
such as ones used by printk() which are left behind resident in the memory
throughout the life of the system even though code referring to them has
been
10 matches
Mail list logo
