Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 17 Jan 2022 10:14:13 -0500
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To:     "Chen, Rong A" <rong.a.chen@intel.com>
Cc:     kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>, kbuild-all@lists.01.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [kbuild-all] Re: WARNING: modpost:
 vmlinux.o(.text.unlikely+0x2c44): Section mismatch in reference from the
 function trace_define_generic_fields() to the variable
 .init.data:initcall_level_names
Message-ID: <20220117101413.51edd7fa@rorschach.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <cea7d17b-1994-e2cb-7580-4bd2f287ebdd@intel.com>
References: <202112210114.CFpCHRci-lkp@intel.com>
        <20220110185100.6c4c226c@gandalf.local.home>
        <cea7d17b-1994-e2cb-7580-4bd2f287ebdd@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 17 Jan 2022 16:32:38 +0800
"Chen, Rong A" <rong.a.chen@intel.com> wrote:

> > 
> > Please tell me where initcall_level_names is being referenced?
> > 
> > Either fix the compiler or tell me exactly what the bug is. Otherwise, stop
> > sending me this.
> > 
> > -- Steve  
> 
> Hi Steve,
> 
> I'm not familiar with the code, the warning can be silenced with the 
> below change:
> 
> --- a/kernel/trace/trace_events.c
> +++ b/kernel/trace/trace_events.c
> @@ -162,7 +162,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(trace_define_field);
>          if (ret)                                                        \
>                  return ret;
> 
> -static int trace_define_generic_fields(void)
> +static __init int trace_define_generic_fields(void)
>   {
>          int ret;
> 
> @@ -174,7 +174,7 @@ static int trace_define_generic_fields(void)
>          return ret;
>   }
> 
> -static int trace_define_common_fields(void)
> +static __init int trace_define_common_fields(void)
>   {
>          int ret;
>          struct trace_entry ent;
> 
> If the warning can't be fixed, we'll add the warning to the ignore list.
> 

So the issue is that an __init function calls a static function that
isn't marked as __init?

I guess it can be updated, but seriously, there's nothing bad that can
happen with the above, and it still looks to me as an over aggressive
compiler.

-- Steve