On Mon, 3 Jan 2011 20:51:31 +0100
Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org> wrote:

quoted text
> On Mon, Jan 03, 2011 at 11:43:10AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Mon,  3 Jan 2011 03:51:28 +0100
> > Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > >From my build.log:
> > > 
> > > WARNING: drivers/misc/cs5535-mfgpt.o(.data+0x0): Section mismatch
> > > in reference from the variable cs5535_mfgpt_drv to the
> > > function .devinit.text:cs5535_mfgpt_probe() The variable
> > > cs5535_mfgpt_drv references the function __devinit
> > > cs5535_mfgpt_probe() If the reference is valid then annotate the
> > > variable with __init* or __refdata (see linux/init.h) or name the
> > > variable: *driver, *_template, *_timer, *_sht, *_ops, *_probe,
> > > *_probe_one, *_console,
> > 
> > Confused.  cs5535_mfgpt_probe() _does_ have a name of the form
> > "*_probe", so why did it warn?
> 
> The varibale need to follow the naming scheme.
> In this case the function was named *_probe - which has no
> significance in the section mismatch checks.
> 
> > > variable with __init* or __refdata (see linux/init.h) or name the
> > > variable:
>     ^^^^^^^^
> ^^^^^^^^^ 
> 
> 	Sam

I see.  So it should really be renamed cs5535_mfgpt_driver, or _drv
added to the whitelist.  Or the whitelist dropped, and all drivers
changed to explicitly mark the structs with __devinitdata.

It's kind of bizarre that we have variable names signifying whether or
not warnings get issued..
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/