[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200901141048.59632.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 10:48:58 +1030
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: ebiederm@...ssion.com, cl@...ux-foundation.org, mingo@...e.hu,
travis@....com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hpa@...or.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, steiner@....com, hugh@...itas.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/13] x86_32: make percpu symbols zerobased on SMP
On Tuesday 13 January 2009 21:08:17 Tejun Heo wrote:
> This patch makes percpu symbols zerobased on x86_32 SMP by using
> PERCPU_VADDR() with 0 vaddr in vmlinux_32.lds.S. A new PHDR is added
> as existing ones cannot contain sections near address zero.
...
> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
> Cc: Mike Travis <travis@....com>
> ---
> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c | 8 ++++++++
> arch/x86/kernel/head_32.S | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> arch/x86/kernel/setup_percpu.c | 4 ----
> arch/x86/kernel/vmlinux_32.lds.S | 16 +++++++++++++++-
> 4 files changed, 57 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
Hmm, the only reason for this change is to unify with 64-bit, yes? Yet it
doesn't actually win us anything on that front, as this diffstat shows.
If gcc's -mcmodel=kernel had used a weak symbol for the offset of the stack
canary, we would have been happy. Unfortunately generic per-cpu and x86-64
PDA were developed separately, so noone realize the problem until too late.
The basic series looks good: it will clash with my per-cpu work (mainly
because I remove the per_cpu__ prefix) in a purely-textual way though.
Thanks for this!
Rusty.
--
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