On 29 January 2016 at 17:00, Matt Fleming <matt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jan, at 10:36:03AM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> On 28 January 2016 at 23:58, Matt Fleming <matt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> > Would it make more sense to #undef __init in one of the arm64 efistub
>> > header files? I'm thinking of the case where some poor unsuspecting
>> > developer writes a new function and marks it as __init, and we miss it
>> > during review.
>> >
>>
>> Yes, I can add it to efistub.h, and make sure it gets included in all the files
>>
>> Should we #undef it and #define it to a string that is easily grep'ed
>> for, so it is easy to find the explanatory comment that goes along
>> with it?
>> E.g.,
>>
>> #define __init __init_not_supported_in_efi_stub
>
> This would produce a compilation failure if someone tags something as
> __init right? Looks fine to me.
Yes, but it makes the error message difficult to decipher, since
__init is printed and not what it resolves to. Locally, I tried this,
which seems to work:
#undef __init
#define __init __attribute__((__init_not_supported_in_efi_stub))
#pragma GCC diagnostic error "-Wattributes"
which produces
CC drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/arm-stub.o
/home/ard/linux-2.6/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/arm-stub.c:24:1:
error: ‘__init_not_supported_in_efi_stub’ attribute directive ignored
[-Werror=attributes]
{
^
cc1: some warnings being treated as errors
which is slightly dodgy, but at least puts the string right in the error message
--
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
