Em Sat, 9 May 2009 12:46:07 +0200 (CEST)
Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@xxxxxx> escreveu:
> On Sat, 9 May 2009, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
>
> > Applied, but it is not producing two section mismatches. Please fix it and send
> > this patch alone, ASAP, since I intend to fold it together with your patch, at my -git.
> >
> > WARNING: /home/v4l/master/v4l/soc_camera.o(.data+0x0): Section mismatch in reference from the variable soc_camera_pdrv to the function .devinit.text:soc_camera_pdrv_probe()
> > The variable soc_camera_pdrv references
> > the function __devinit soc_camera_pdrv_probe()
> > If the reference is valid then annotate the
> > variable with __init* (see linux/init.h) or name the variable:
> > *driver, *_template, *_timer, *_sht, *_ops, *_probe, *_probe_one, *_console,
> >
> > WARNING: /home/v4l/master/v4l/soc_camera.o(.data+0x8): Section mismatch in reference from the variable soc_camera_pdrv to the function .devexit.text:soc_camera_pdrv_remove()
> > The variable soc_camera_pdrv references
> > the function __devexit soc_camera_pdrv_remove()
> > If the reference is valid then annotate the
> > variable with __exit* (see linux/init.h) or name the variable:
> > *driver, *_template, *_timer, *_sht, *_ops, *_probe, *_probe_one, *_console,
>
> Grrr, yeah, to be honest, I find this "rule," hm, at least "funny." It is
> an absolutely standard construct:
>
> +static struct platform_driver soc_camera_pdrv = {
> + .probe = soc_camera_pdrv_probe,
> + .remove = __exit_p(soc_camera_pdrv_remove),
> + .driver = {
> + .name = "soc-camera-pdrv",
> + .owner = THIS_MODULE,
> + },
> +};
> +
>
> where .probe function is a __devinit, and .remove is a __devexit, and the
> test is complaining about a section mismatch _unless_ you name the struct
> with "*driver" or "*_template" or "*_timer" or... I don't find this very
> helpful FWIW.
You may alternatively propose an upstream patch to remove the dumb rule, or
question at LKML about it.
> Ok, I'll rename the struct to soc_camera_pdriver. If you
> want, you can do this yourself, just a trivial change, or I'll send a
> patch tonight, in about 8 hours, is that enough?
Yes, this is ok.
>
> > Btw,
> >
> > I've aded a new target on our building system:
> > make mismatch
> >
> > It would be better to use the newer tag, instead of just "make" before sending
> > patches to me, to be sure that the code won't generate section mismatches.
>
> You mean to the hg repository? Nice, but I'm not building in hg, I always
> only build in complete trees...
Ok, but anyway, this is useful for me and probably for other developers.
>
> Thanks
> Guennadi
> ---
> Guennadi Liakhovetski, Ph.D.
> Freelance Open-Source Software Developer
> http://www.open-technology.de/
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Cheers,
Mauro
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
