On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 09:17:48AM +0800, Jackie Liu wrote:
> From: Jackie Liu <liuyun01@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Fix modpost Section mismatch error in memblock_phys_alloc()
>
> [...]
> WARNING: modpost: vmlinux.o(.text.unlikely+0x1dcc): Section mismatch in reference
> from the function memblock_phys_alloc() to the function .init.text:memblock_phys_alloc_range()
> The function memblock_phys_alloc() references
> the function __init memblock_phys_alloc_range().
> This is often because memblock_phys_alloc lacks a __init
> annotation or the annotation of memblock_phys_alloc_range is wrong.
>
> ERROR: modpost: Section mismatches detected.
> Set CONFIG_SECTION_MISMATCH_WARN_ONLY=y to allow them.
> [...]
>
> I have checked that the memblock_phys_alloc used in the source tree is all in
> the __init section, we should also let him save it in this section.
I don't know why compiler decided against inlining memblock_phys_alloc(),
so better solution here would be to use __always_inline IMO.
> Reported-by: k2ci <kernel-bot@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Jackie Liu <liuyun01@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> include/linux/memblock.h | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/memblock.h b/include/linux/memblock.h
> index 8adcf1fa8096..8959d43bc76b 100644
> --- a/include/linux/memblock.h
> +++ b/include/linux/memblock.h
> @@ -405,7 +405,7 @@ phys_addr_t memblock_alloc_range_nid(phys_addr_t size,
> phys_addr_t end, int nid, bool exact_nid);
> phys_addr_t memblock_phys_alloc_try_nid(phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align, int nid);
>
> -static inline phys_addr_t memblock_phys_alloc(phys_addr_t size,
> +static inline phys_addr_t __init memblock_phys_alloc(phys_addr_t size,
> phys_addr_t align)
> {
> return memblock_phys_alloc_range(size, align, 0,
> --
> 2.25.1
>
--
Sincerely yours,
Mike.
