Re: [PATCH 2/7] x86, xsave: introduce xstate enable functions

[Suresh Siddha]

On Wed, 2010-07-21 at 14:10 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 07/21/2010 10:03 AM, Robert Richter wrote:
> > The patch renames xsave_cntxt_init() and __xsave_init() into
> > xstate_enable_boot_cpu() and xstate_enable() as this names are more
> > meaningful.
> > 
> > It also removes the duplicate xcr setup for the boot cpu.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Robert Richter <robert.richter@xxxxxxx>
> 
> > -static void __cpuinit xsave_cntxt_init(void)
> > +static void __cpuinit xstate_enable_boot_cpu(void)
> >  {
> >  	unsigned int eax, ebx, ecx, edx;
> >  
> > @@ -443,7 +438,8 @@ static void __cpuinit xsave_cntxt_init(void)
> >  	 * Support only the state known to OS.
> >  	 */
> >  	pcntxt_mask = pcntxt_mask & XCNTXT_MASK;
> > -	__xsave_init();
> > +
> > +	xstate_enable(pcntxt_mask);
> >  
> >  	/*
> >  	 * Recompute the context size for enabled features
> 
> This one should be __init rather than __cpuinit, right?  As written, I get:
> 
> 
> WARNING: vmlinux.o(.cpuinit.text+0x824): Section mismatch in reference
> from the function xstate_enable_boot_cpu() to the function
> .init.text:__alloc_bootmem()
> The function __cpuinit xstate_enable_boot_cpu() references
> a function __init __alloc_bootmem().
> If __alloc_bootmem is only used by xstate_enable_boot_cpu then
> annotate __alloc_bootmem with a matching annotation.
> 
> [No need to resend the patch, but if either Suresh or Robert could ACK
> this change I'd appreciate it.]

Yes, it should be __init.

thanks,
suresh

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/