From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932108AbbCZVlB (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Mar 2015 17:41:01 -0400 Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:58529 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932067AbbCZVlA (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Mar 2015 17:41:00 -0400 Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 14:40:58 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Mathias Krause Cc: Joe Perches , Mason , Linux ARM , LKML , Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: String literals in __init functions Message-Id: <20150326144058.56ef6916b00ad38030296089@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: References: <5512F6C6.1020304@free.fr> <1427306517.2717.0.camel@perches.com> <5513FE2F.3040306@free.fr> <1427386390.15849.13.camel@perches.com> <1427392393.15849.16.camel@perches.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.4.1 (GTK+ 2.24.23; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 26 Mar 2015 21:49:06 +0100 Mathias Krause wrote: > Andrew, what's your opinion on such a patch set? Do you too think it's > useful? Or do you share Ingo's fear about the additional maintenance > burden? I don't think the burden would be toooo high, although it will mess the code up a bit. The post-build checking for section reference mismatches will help, although that seems to have got itself turned off (what happened there?). Did anyone look at writing a postprocessor for the .s files? It doesn't look like it will be too hard from an initial peek. Did anyone ask the gcc developers? I'd have thought that a function-wide __attribute__((__string_section__(foo)) wouldn't be a ton of work to implement. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: akpm@linux-foundation.org (Andrew Morton) Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 14:40:58 -0700 Subject: String literals in __init functions In-Reply-To: References: <5512F6C6.1020304@free.fr> <1427306517.2717.0.camel@perches.com> <5513FE2F.3040306@free.fr> <1427386390.15849.13.camel@perches.com> <1427392393.15849.16.camel@perches.com> Message-ID: <20150326144058.56ef6916b00ad38030296089@linux-foundation.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, 26 Mar 2015 21:49:06 +0100 Mathias Krause wrote: > Andrew, what's your opinion on such a patch set? Do you too think it's > useful? Or do you share Ingo's fear about the additional maintenance > burden? I don't think the burden would be toooo high, although it will mess the code up a bit. The post-build checking for section reference mismatches will help, although that seems to have got itself turned off (what happened there?). Did anyone look at writing a postprocessor for the .s files? It doesn't look like it will be too hard from an initial peek. Did anyone ask the gcc developers? I'd have thought that a function-wide __attribute__((__string_section__(foo)) wouldn't be a ton of work to implement.