On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 01:21:19PM +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 25.03.14 at 21:57, <daniel.kiper@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Export arch_tables variable. Xen init function calls efi_config_init()
> > which takes it as an argument.
> >
> > Additionally, put __initdata in place suggested by include/linux/init.h.
>
> Which isn't necessarily the most appropriate place.
Why? If comments in include/linux/init.h are not valid they should be changed.
> > --- a/arch/x86/platform/efi/efi.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/platform/efi/efi.c
> > @@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ static efi_system_table_t efi_systab __initdata;
> >
> > unsigned long x86_efi_facility;
> >
> > -static __initdata efi_config_table_type_t arch_tables[] = {
> > +efi_config_table_type_t arch_tables[] __initdata = {
>
> efi_config_table_type_t __initdata arch_tables[] = {
>
> would be what I'd recommend.
>
> > --- a/include/linux/efi.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/efi.h
> > @@ -583,6 +583,8 @@ extern struct efi {
> > struct efi_memory_map *memmap;
> > } efi;
> >
> > +extern efi_config_table_type_t arch_tables[] __initdata;
>
> And section placement annotations are bogus on declarations.
Hmmm... I am not sure which approach is better. I saw that
in many places declarations have annotations. Could you
point me some docs which states (and explains) that this
is wrong idea.
Daniel
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-efi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
