Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] efi: Export arch_tables variable

[Jan Beulich]

>>> On 26.03.14 at 15:08, <daniel.kiper@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 01:21:19PM +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 25.03.14 at 21:57, <daniel.kiper@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > Export arch_tables variable. Xen init function calls efi_config_init()
>> > which takes it as an argument.
>> >
>> > Additionally, put __initdata in place suggested by include/linux/init.h.
>>
>> Which isn't necessarily the most appropriate place.
> 
> Why? If comments in include/linux/init.h are not valid they should be 
> changed.

Because they can't go there uniformly: While on function declarations
you can put them there, on function definitions they need to come
before the function name. And placing attributes between type and
name does - iirc - work consistently for everything.

>> > --- a/include/linux/efi.h
>> > +++ b/include/linux/efi.h
>> > @@ -583,6 +583,8 @@ extern struct efi {
>> >  	struct efi_memory_map *memmap;
>> >  } efi;
>> >
>> > +extern efi_config_table_type_t arch_tables[] __initdata;
>>
>> And section placement annotations are bogus on declarations.
> 
> Hmmm... I am not sure which approach is better. I saw that
> in many places declarations have annotations. Could you
> point me some docs which states (and explains) that this
> is wrong idea.

Just use common sense: Attributes that are of concern to the
caller should go on the declaration. Attributes that only affect
code generation for the function/object in question should go on
the definition.

Jan

--
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/