[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081112181940.GA15614@uranus.ravnborg.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 19:19:40 +0100
From: Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
To: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
Cc: Isaku Yamahata <yamahata@...inux.co.jp>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix section type conflict in arch/ia64/xen/xen_pv_ops.c
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 08:04:30PM +0100, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> At Tue, 11 Nov 2008 10:47:24 -0800,
> Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> >
> > Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > > At Tue, 11 Nov 2008 09:43:27 -0800,
> > > Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> > >
> > >> Isaku Yamahata wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Here is.
> > >>>
> > >>> __initdata and const cannot be always a happy pair and
> > >>> x86 xen has the potential issue.
> > >>> This patch simply removes const from data with __initdata
> > >>> under arch/x86/xen/.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >> No, I think the proper fix is to use __initconst.
> > >>
> > >
> > > The problem is that it depends on gcc version which section it goes.
> > > Thus __initconst could break some gcc versions as well.
> > >
> >
> > Why? __initconst explicitly puts it in .init.rodata.
>
> Hrm, right, that's what __initconst does. Just confused.
> Then I'm wondering in which case __initconst can be broken...
> Sam? Do you have any particular reports?
I have only got reports that __initconst causes gcc build failure
on powerpc 64 bit.
So for x86 it should be safe to use __initconst.
Sam
--
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