Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/8] arch/x86/xen/irq: Cleanup code/data sections definitions

[Jan Beulich]

>>> On 04.05.11 at 20:16, Daniel Kiper <dkiper@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Cleanup code/data sections definitions
> accordingly to include/linux/init.h.

I'm not clear what the motivation for this patch series is in the first
place, but I'm particularly unhappy with following inconsistent
guidelines: The placement suggestion for function and data
definitions are not in sync - the annotation is said to go between
type and name for functions, but after the name for data, yet
there's no reason known to me why the rule for data can't be the
same as that for functions (the other way around doesn't work,
as gcc's documentation says that for function definitions (other
than for their declarations) attributes cannot currently follow the
declarator.

So I'd rather think the guidelines should first be made consistent
(or it should be explained why they must be different), and then
the users of those annotations should get updated.

Jan

> Signed-off-by: Daniel Kiper <dkiper@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  arch/x86/xen/irq.c |    2 +-
>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/xen/irq.c b/arch/x86/xen/irq.c
> index 6a6fe89..8bbb465 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/xen/irq.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/xen/irq.c
> @@ -113,7 +113,7 @@ static void xen_halt(void)
>  		xen_safe_halt();
>  }
>  
> -static const struct pv_irq_ops xen_irq_ops __initdata = {
> +static const struct pv_irq_ops xen_irq_ops __initconst = {
>  	.save_fl = PV_CALLEE_SAVE(xen_save_fl),
>  	.restore_fl = PV_CALLEE_SAVE(xen_restore_fl),
>  	.irq_disable = PV_CALLEE_SAVE(xen_irq_disable),




--
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/