linux-kernel - Re: avr32 build failures in linux-next

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 10 Mar 2016 14:24:49 +0000
From:	Måns Rullgård <mans@...sr.com>
To:	Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc:	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
	Hans-Christian Noren Egtvedt <egtvedt@...fundet.no>,
	Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com>,
	Haavard Skinnemoen <hskinnemoen@...il.com>,
	"linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: avr32 build failures in linux-next

Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com> writes:

> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 3:38 PM, Måns Rullgård <mans@...sr.com> wrote:
>> Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 6:02 AM, Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
>>>> On 02/08/2016 08:06 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 7:28 PM, Måns Rullgård <mans@...sr.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Not very surprising either.  The number of people using Linux on avr32
>>>>>> is probably approximately zero, and if anyone is, they're likely still
>>>>>> running 2.6.32 or thereabouts.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Once I tried up the topic about removal avr32 for good, but looks like
>>>>> it wasn't a good time. Maybe now is better? It would really reduce a
>>>>> burden on many drivers.
>>>>>
>>>> I would agree, as long as the maintainers agree. We don't want to repeat
>>>> the h8300 experience.
>>>
>>> So, are we going to agree that avr32 must be retired from next cycle?
>>>
>>> P.S. I have no idea how to fix this "…relocation truncated to fit:
>>> R_AVR32_21S…", though I can test anything anyone propose.
>>
>> The error goes away if CONFIG_AIO_THREAD is disabled.  Still don't know why.
>
> A straight guess: it has reduced enough room to fit the relocation window?

That was my first guess as well, but it was wrong.  See the patch I just
sent for an explanation.

-- 
Måns Rullgård