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=-15.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_RED 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 AF41AC433E1 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2021 04:38:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9845661A1B for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2021 04:38:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229801AbhCYEiQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Mar 2021 00:38:16 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:44534 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229816AbhCYEhy (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Mar 2021 00:37:54 -0400 Received: by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C415E61A1A; Thu, 25 Mar 2021 04:37:50 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=linux-foundation.org; s=korg; t=1616647071; bh=msCcVHJlS0RJo+KpsBb3jVpNKuTDB3nsOWNNz4sDL2g=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:From; b=dvXbau/Q6kAP4oaprqOQJKT/q+HCJBGrJUYYnDJ232JHwjGs5g0ki/Xc1OHf/Jl+q 4tZm3dMgLY9u4fZuUVjTAkEsjEK93QjtDi0XjpTXu/YBrhFNS1dKzs1VEiuUexGr98 6zoRvg+ZXHYE1VH31IO1200P7hN90Q/F0xzL+5gE= Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2021 21:37:50 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: akpm@linux-foundation.org, arnd@arndb.de, david@redhat.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, lkp@intel.com, mm-commits@vger.kernel.org, ndesaulniers@google.com, rppt@linux.ibm.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org Subject: [patch 12/14] mm: memblock: fix section mismatch warning again Message-ID: <20210325043750.LupCgd9Zf%akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20210324213644.bf03a529aec4ef9580e17dbc@linux-foundation.org> User-Agent: s-nail v14.8.16 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: mm-commits@vger.kernel.org From: Mike Rapoport Subject: mm: memblock: fix section mismatch warning again 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: All warnings (new ones prefixed by >>, old ones prefixed by <<): >> 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 --- include/linux/memblock.h | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) --- a/include/linux/memblock.h~memblock-fix-section-mismatch-warning-again +++ a/include/linux/memblock.h @@ -460,7 +460,7 @@ static inline void memblock_free_late(ph /* * 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_b * 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; } _