[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1214961799.3316.36.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 20:23:19 -0500
From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To: Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@...glemail.com>
Cc: linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, Russell King <rmk@....linux.org.uk>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
Lennert Buytenhek <kernel@...tstofly.org>,
Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
linux-embedded@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Tim Bird <tim.bird@...sony.com>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Dave Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/23] make section names compatible with
-ffunction-sections -fdata-sections: parisc
On Wed, 2008-07-02 at 02:00 +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> On Wednesday 02 July 2008 01:41, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Wed, 2008-07-02 at 02:39 +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> > > The purpose of this patch is to make kernel buildable
> > > with "gcc -ffunction-sections -fdata-sections".
> > > This patch fixes parisc architecture.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@...glemail.com>
> >
> > Um ... if you look at the Makefile you'll see we already build parisc
> > with -ffunction-sections; we have to: our relative jumps are too small
> > to guarantee finding the stubs in large files.
> >
> > Since our text is -ffunction-sections compatible already, I question the
> > need for transformations like this:
> >
> > > - *(.text.do_softirq)
> > > - *(.text.sys_exit)
> > > - *(.text.do_sigaltstack)
> > > - *(.text.do_fork)
> > > + *(.do_softirq.text)
> > > + *(.sys_exit.text)
> > > + *(.do_sigaltstack.text)
> > > + *(.do_fork.text)
>
> arch/parisc/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S contains these lines:
>
> TEXT_TEXT
> SCHED_TEXT
> LOCK_TEXT
> *(.text.do_softirq)
> *(.text.sys_exit)
> *(.text.do_sigaltstack)
> *(.text.do_fork)
>
> which suggested to me that for parisc it is important to have
> these sections in that place (after LOCK_TEXT) and order.
Yes ... moderately.
> If you use -ffunction-sections, any function with the name
> do_fork (say, a static function somewhere) will end up in
> .text.do_fork function, and will be "mixed up" with
> global do_fork(). For parisc it is maybe not a problem
> (I am not an expert) but in other places/arches people
> clearly would not want this kind of things to happen.
Erm, but we're trying to name text sections of the -ffunction-sections.
We're doing this because we are trying to do a semblance of a reasonable
arrangement for the relative jumps (and avoid stubs). Your patch is
explicitly breaking all of this.
> In order to handle these situations uniformly, in these patches
> I decided to _never_ use .text.XXXX names for sections,
> effectively leaving them "reserved for gcc's use".
We need to use the names gcc outputs, not some random name.
> Did I understand you right that in this chunk I need to
> leave .text.FUNC_NAME as it was before?
Yes.
> > And thus by the same token the data transformations.
>
> It would be easiest for me if you will reply to the parisc patch
> and indicate all parts where I should NOT do name change.
That would be the piece above.
James
--
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