[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080620062958.GA31182@elte.hu>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 08:29:58 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@...il.com>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: make 64bit identify_cpu use cpu_dev v2
* Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@...il.com> wrote:
> v2: fix early_panic on some conf
> reason : struct cpu_vendor_dev size is 16, need to make table to be 16
> byte alignment
> also print out the cpu supported...
applied to tip/x86/cpu, thanks Yinghai.
> --- linux-2.6.orig/arch/x86/kernel/vmlinux_64.lds.S
> +++ linux-2.6/arch/x86/kernel/vmlinux_64.lds.S
> @@ -168,6 +168,7 @@ SECTIONS
> *(.con_initcall.init)
> }
> __con_initcall_end = .;
> + . = ALIGN(16);
> __x86cpuvendor_start = .;
> .x86cpuvendor.init : AT(ADDR(.x86cpuvendor.init) - LOAD_OFFSET) {
> *(.x86cpuvendor.init)
ah, nice one!
we broke that via v2.6.25-37-g03ae576 "x86: use ELF section to list CPU
vendor specific code" - should we backport your fix to mainline right
now? I'm wondering why it only triggered now - did alignment change in
this section due to your changes and thus this dormant bug became
triggerable?
Ingo
--
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