On Mon, 14 May 2007 08:56:52 -0500
Kumar Gala <galak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 14, 2007, at 6:06 AM, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 06:53:32PM +0800, Li Yang wrote:This patch fixes the following "Section mismatch" warnings when
build powerpc platforms.
-------------
WARNING: arch/powerpc/mm/built-in.o - Section mismatch: reference to
.init.text:early_get_page from .text between
'pte_alloc_one_kernel' (at
offset 0xc68) and 'pte_alloc_one'
WARNING: mm/built-in.o - Section mismatch: reference to
.init.text:set_up_list3s from .text between
'kmem_cache_create' (at offset
0x20300) and 'cache_reap'
-------------
This warnings should be handled by __init_refok instead.
Yes, I think so.
Massive warnings represented by:Acked-by: Sam Ravnborg <sam@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
-------------
WARNING: arch/powerpc/kernel/built-in.o - Section mismatch:
reference to
.init.data:.got2 from prom_entry (offset 0x0)
WARNING: arch/powerpc/platforms/built-in.o - Section mismatch:
reference to
.init.text:mpc8313_rdb_probe from .machine.desc after
'mach_mpc8313_rdb'
(at offset 0x4)
-------------
Signed-off-by: Li Yang <leoli@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
I always get confused when a git-tree-owner says "acked-by" against a patch
which falls within his tree's area. An acked-by would mean "I'm OK with
the patch, please apply it". But I'd have expected to see a "thanks,
applied" instead.
If it was "Andrew: please merge and send to Linus because it's urgent and I
can't be bothered setting up a git pull for it" then fine, but please be
explicit about that.