From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matt Fleming Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] arm64: efistub: drop __init annotation from handle_kernel_image() Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 16:00:06 +0000 Message-ID: <20160129160006.GD2611@codeblueprint.co.uk> References: <1453979254-25374-1-git-send-email-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> <1453979254-25374-2-git-send-email-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> <20160128225809.GF2571@codeblueprint.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-efi-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Ard Biesheuvel Cc: "linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org" , Leif Lindholm , Will Deacon , Catalin Marinas , Mark Rutland , "linux-efi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" List-Id: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 29 Jan, at 10:36:03AM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On 28 January 2016 at 23:58, Matt Fleming wrote: > > > > Would it make more sense to #undef __init in one of the arm64 efistub > > header files? I'm thinking of the case where some poor unsuspecting > > developer writes a new function and marks it as __init, and we miss it > > during review. > > > > Yes, I can add it to efistub.h, and make sure it gets included in all the files > > Should we #undef it and #define it to a string that is easily grep'ed > for, so it is easy to find the explanatory comment that goes along > with it? > E.g., > > #define __init __init_not_supported_in_efi_stub This would produce a compilation failure if someone tags something as __init right? Looks fine to me. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: matt@codeblueprint.co.uk (Matt Fleming) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 16:00:06 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 1/3] arm64: efistub: drop __init annotation from handle_kernel_image() In-Reply-To: References: <1453979254-25374-1-git-send-email-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> <1453979254-25374-2-git-send-email-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> <20160128225809.GF2571@codeblueprint.co.uk> Message-ID: <20160129160006.GD2611@codeblueprint.co.uk> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Fri, 29 Jan, at 10:36:03AM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On 28 January 2016 at 23:58, Matt Fleming wrote: > > > > Would it make more sense to #undef __init in one of the arm64 efistub > > header files? I'm thinking of the case where some poor unsuspecting > > developer writes a new function and marks it as __init, and we miss it > > during review. > > > > Yes, I can add it to efistub.h, and make sure it gets included in all the files > > Should we #undef it and #define it to a string that is easily grep'ed > for, so it is easy to find the explanatory comment that goes along > with it? > E.g., > > #define __init __init_not_supported_in_efi_stub This would produce a compilation failure if someone tags something as __init right? Looks fine to me.