linux-kernel - Re: _proxy_pda still makes linking modules fail

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20070312154558.GA16327@one.firstfloor.org>
Date:	Mon, 12 Mar 2007 16:45:58 +0100
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk <qrczak@....org.pl>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Subject: Re: _proxy_pda still makes linking modules fail

On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 07:45:25AM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Andi Kleen wrote:
> >> Rusty's pda->per_cpu patch will deal with this once and for all; have
> >>     
> >
> > Not on x86-64.
> >   
> 
> Have you considered dropping pda in x86-64?  Segment based percpu
> doesn't really have any disadvantages.

Maybe.

> 
> >> you picked it up yet?
> >>     
> >
> > Not yet.
> >   
> 
> There will be interactions with my paravirt+xen patches, so I'm
> wondering if I should rebase onto those patches, or should we apply them
> later and fix everything up?

Applying them later is probably better

-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/