From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-19.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_GIT autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D534C433E1 for ; Mon, 29 Mar 2021 09:00:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFD7361879 for ; Mon, 29 Mar 2021 09:00:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S236136AbhC2JAK (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Mar 2021 05:00:10 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:54738 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S234973AbhC2Ihs (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Mar 2021 04:37:48 -0400 Received: by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5295B61580; Mon, 29 Mar 2021 08:37:47 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=linuxfoundation.org; s=korg; t=1617007067; bh=5x0KH8zIlb7Ip2blmdQLhK9UoQYyr2+nHpC8RdR1KsE=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=VVA6MYNWUA5z5DW138LhWqC+w70x6J+sVt5TR5mK8mhgnnlFVG4j5XcVqsHNAoFbi DHuZXYJqjoUqex251ypt+uN6ihYQr31kAfXN91DLSsS1x67+0086q9y1088+3MPiDE XtlVnFdOHjHiGmAqxtvaVG9PBAAxi48GyUIM1slE= From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , stable@vger.kernel.org, Mike Rapoport , Arnd Bergmann , kernel test robot , David Hildenbrand , Nick Desaulniers , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , Sasha Levin Subject: [PATCH 5.11 210/254] mm: memblock: fix section mismatch warning again Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2021 09:58:46 +0200 Message-Id: <20210329075639.990770018@linuxfoundation.org> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.31.1 In-Reply-To: <20210329075633.135869143@linuxfoundation.org> References: <20210329075633.135869143@linuxfoundation.org> User-Agent: quilt/0.66 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Mike Rapoport [ Upstream commit a024b7c2850dddd01e65b8270f0971deaf272f27 ] Commit 34dc2efb39a2 ("memblock: fix section mismatch warning") marked memblock_bottom_up() and memblock_set_bottom_up() as __init, but they could be referenced from non-init functions like memblock_find_in_range_node() on architectures that enable CONFIG_ARCH_KEEP_MEMBLOCK. For such builds kernel test robot reports: WARNING: modpost: vmlinux.o(.text+0x74fea4): Section mismatch in reference from the function memblock_find_in_range_node() to the function .init.text:memblock_bottom_up() The function memblock_find_in_range_node() references the function __init memblock_bottom_up(). This is often because memblock_find_in_range_node lacks a __init annotation or the annotation of memblock_bottom_up is wrong. Replace __init annotations with __init_memblock annotations so that the appropriate section will be selected depending on CONFIG_ARCH_KEEP_MEMBLOCK. Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/202103160133.UzhgY0wt-lkp@intel.com Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20210316171347.14084-1-rppt@kernel.org Fixes: 34dc2efb39a2 ("memblock: fix section mismatch warning") Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport Reviewed-by: Arnd Bergmann Reported-by: kernel test robot Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand Acked-by: Nick Desaulniers Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin --- include/linux/memblock.h | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/include/linux/memblock.h b/include/linux/memblock.h index 7643d2dfa959..4ce9c8f9e684 100644 --- a/include/linux/memblock.h +++ b/include/linux/memblock.h @@ -460,7 +460,7 @@ static inline void memblock_free_late(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size) /* * Set the allocation direction to bottom-up or top-down. */ -static inline __init void memblock_set_bottom_up(bool enable) +static inline __init_memblock void memblock_set_bottom_up(bool enable) { memblock.bottom_up = enable; } @@ -470,7 +470,7 @@ static inline __init void memblock_set_bottom_up(bool enable) * if this is true, that said, memblock will allocate memory * in bottom-up direction. */ -static inline __init bool memblock_bottom_up(void) +static inline __init_memblock bool memblock_bottom_up(void) { return memblock.bottom_up; } -- 2.30.1