[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0804101041430.5673@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 10:43:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
cc: Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, akpm@...l.org,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Glauber de Oliveira Costa <gcosta@...hat.com>,
Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...ell.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, pinskia@....gnu.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pop previous section in alternative.c
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > I would say anytime there's a "^+.*\.section" there had better be a
> > "^-.*\.section" or a "+.*.previous" matching it. Off hand I can't think o
> > any exceptions to this rule although I may be wrong.
>
>
> Second section is wrong because the compiler expects that the same
> section is active afterwards and that can be different ones (like
> init.text vs normal text)
No the second section in my example is not wrong, because it starts with a
"-", which in a patch would be a replacement of one .section with another,
not an addition of two sections.
>
> Also pushsection/popsection is also valid
>
> So in summary valid section patterns are either
> ..section / .previous or .pushsection .section .popsection
But you are right with this part. Yeah, either a .section is replaced, or
is added with a .previous, or is encapsulated with push and popsections.
-- Steve
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists