Re: [git pull] PCI changes for 2.6.30

From: Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>
To: Alex Chiang <achiang@hp.com>
Cc: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [git pull] PCI changes for 2.6.30
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 21:16:36 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090406191636.GA2366@uranus.ravnborg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090406151931.GB25005@ldl.fc.hp.com>

On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 09:19:31AM -0600, Alex Chiang wrote:
> * Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>:
> > > 
> > > Reading through Documentation/PCI/pci.txt says that under
> > > CONFIG_HOTPLUG, __devinit should be a nop?
> > The documentation is not up-to-date in this respect.
> > 
> > Annotating a function __devinit will no matter the configuration
> > locate the code in a section named .devinit.text
> 
> Ok, I'll update the documentation.
> 
> > We then postprocess this section for illegal references using modpost.
> > 
> > The PCI_HOTPLUG code has often been troublesome with respect to these checks
> > as this code is only relevant if CONFIG_HOTPLUG is enabled
> > and will often not even be included in the kernel if not enabled.
> > This is true for pci_rescan_bus() for example.
> > 
> > And we would like to export these symbols too. But we do not allow exported
> > symbols to be annotated __devinit as this code will be blown away in some configurations.
> > 
> > So the correct solution which you also used in your patch is to tell
> > modpost to ignore references to *init sections from this specific funtion
> > as they are OK.
> 
> Does this count as an Acked-by?
If this is not too late - yes.

	Sam