[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8bd0f97a0907032251p753527e1oac25ea1740a1bfdb@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2009 01:51:04 -0400
From: Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@...il.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: "linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Michal Simek <monstr@...str.eu>,
microblaze-uclinux@...e.uq.edu.au, Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] linker script: unify usage of discard definition
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 19:37, Tejun Heo wrote:
> +/*
> + * DISCARDS must be the last and archs which want some of the default
> + * discarded sections in the kernel image can do so by putting them in
> + * earlier section definition.
> + */
> #define DISCARDS \
> /DISCARD/ : { \
> EXIT_TEXT \
> EXIT_DATA \
> - *(.exitcall.exit) \
> + EXIT_CALL \
> *(.discard) \
> }
i would add to the comment that some people want to discard exit
text/data at runtime rather than link time due to cross-section
references such as alt instructions, bug table, eh_frame, etc...
otherwise, looks good to me. thanks !
Acked-by: Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org>
-mike
Powered by blists - more mailing lists