On Tue, 27 Aug 2013 15:10:43 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 03:57:53PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: > > Also note that the fix Sachin sent for acpi_power_meter is slightly > > different from what Russell complained about originally. Russell > > complained about: > > > > struct __initdata foo bar; > > > > While acpi_power_meter uses: > > > > struct foo __initdata bar; > > > > The former does indeed NOT work in my tests, so Russell was right > > complaining. The good news is that there are only a few dozen > > occurrences of this in the kernel tree. > > Indeed - and these "don't work" ones are definitely worth fixing. Agreed. > > The later OTOH works fine in my tests so I see no reason to change it - > > unless someone can find a gcc version and platform combination where it > > does not work. Hope this clarifies the whole situation... > > Yes, better not to change what's already there if it works fine. > However, as I mentioned in my previous email, it's probably better to > have a convention here for new code rather than having people stick > these markers in random places within the declaration and hit the "it > silently doesn't work" case. I totally agree, I think we want a checkpatch rule for this. I'll ask for it in a separate thread. -- Jean Delvare _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
