[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m1k56x2hq9.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 14:25:18 -0700
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...nel.org>
Cc: Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Absolute symbols in vmlinux_64.lds.S
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...nel.org> writes:
> Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>
>> I have no complaint with that. I believe the symbols are absolute
>> simply because they were originally coded that way and the relocatable
>> kernel work on x86_64 didn't need them to change.
>>
>
> I have a vague memory of a bug in the x86-64 ld.
Oh. I'm certain of it. ld has all kinds of bugs off and on,
occasionally we are bound to run into a few of them.
ld bugs isn't the reason for using absolute linker symbols. We use a
bunch of relative linker symbols as well. All of the generic linker
scripts sections use them as well as a few of the x86_64 specific
sections.
For crazy things like 0 relative per cpu sections it might matter.
For the rest of the symbols absolute or relative simply
doesn't matter.
Is anyone interested in writing a patch testing it and changing things?
If not things should be good enough for now.
Eric
--
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