On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 02:49:28PM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> The change:
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU
> +#define __INIT .section".text","ax"
> +#define __INITDATA .section".data","aw"
> +#else
> #define __INIT .section".init.text","ax"
>
I'm not sure it'd make much sense for me to test it - I don't have x86
based test boxes here.
Assuming your intention is to revert this commit and replace it with your
patch which doesn't change the semantics of __INIT, it shouldn't cause me
any problems.
Okay -- I'll generate a new patch
On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 11:19:46AM -0400, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
> Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >On Tue, 8 May 2007, Russell King wrote:
> >
> >>Shall I invent __CPUINIT to mark data to always be thrown away, or are
> >>the x86 folk going to withdraw this patch and do it properly?
> >>
> >
> >I ca
Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Tue, 8 May 2007, Russell King wrote:
Shall I invent __CPUINIT to mark data to always be thrown away, or are
the x86 folk going to withdraw this patch and do it properly?
I can certainly revert the patch, but it would probably be better if you
were to just st
On Tue, 8 May 2007, Russell King wrote:
>
> Shall I invent __CPUINIT to mark data to always be thrown away, or are
> the x86 folk going to withdraw this patch and do it properly?
I can certainly revert the patch, but it would probably be better if you
were to just start adding the infrastructu
Russell King wrote:
The change:
+#ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU
+#define __INIT .section".text","ax"
+#define __INITDATA .section".data","aw"
+#else
#define __INIT .section".init.text","ax"
-#define __FINIT.previous
#define __INITDATA
The change:
+#ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU
+#define __INIT .section".text","ax"
+#define __INITDATA .section".data","aw"
+#else
#define __INIT .section".init.text","ax"
-#define __FINIT.previous
#define __INITDATA .section".init
7 matches
Mail list logo
