On Fri, 2015-03-27 at 08:05 +0100, Mathias Krause wrote: > On 26 March 2015 at 22:40, Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > > On Thu, 26 Mar 2015 21:49:06 +0100 Mathias Krause <mini...@googlemail.com> > > 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. [] > > 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. > > The point is you cannot blindly mark all strings referenced from > __init / __exit code to end up in a matching string section because > strings in this code might have to live longer when passed to > functions keeping a pointer on them.
This is the primary reason I support the pi_<level>/pe_<level>/ printk_init/printk_exit markings. It's simple and not a large burden to the coder/reader. If a few formats aren't marked appropriately, it's not generally a significant loss, but it is easily correctable by scripts. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
