Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-118864-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240320180302.143707-1-arnd@kernel.org> <65fb3fee96ec7_aa222949b@dwillia2-mobl3.amr.corp.intel.com.notmuch>
 <CAJZ5v0ivpUuKGx9pW+QeQPSSXNWSSbJwN2oN9p_hmE-nV5VQKA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJZ5v0ivpUuKGx9pW+QeQPSSXNWSSbJwN2oN9p_hmE-nV5VQKA@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 12:18:33 +0100
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0iKbquyA8st=ywUd+WtcJ0A3FYDuhCqSq_3B_koi0RYXg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] acpi: EINJ: mark remove callback as non-__exit
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org>
Cc: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>, Ben Cheatham <Benjamin.Cheatham@amd.com>, 
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>, James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>, 
	Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, Avadhut Naik <Avadhut.Naik@amd.com>, 
	Shuai Xue <xueshuai@linux.alibaba.com>, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 9:00=E2=80=AFPM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.or=
g> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 8:58=E2=80=AFPM Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@inte=
l.com> wrote:
> >
> > Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
> > >
> > > The remove callback of a device is called whenever it is unbound,
> > > which may happen during runtime e.g. through sysfs, so this is not
> > > allowed to be dropped from the binary:
> > >
> > > WARNING: modpost: vmlinux: section mismatch in reference: einj_driver=
+0x8 (section: .data) -> einj_remove (section: .exit.text)
> > > ERROR: modpost: Section mismatches detected.
> > >
> > > Remove that annotation.
> >
> > Looks good, not sure why the build robots missed this while this was
> > sitting in -next. Yes, this was a side effect of reusing the former
> > einj_exit() as the device remove callback.
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
> >
> > Rafael, can you pick this up?
>
> I will, thanks!

Applied now, thanks!