[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1262216506.2749.254.camel@mulgrave.site>
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 17:41:46 -0600
From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...e.de>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@...fujitsu.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86: record relocation offset
On Wed, 2009-12-30 at 15:26 -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Modules are a completely separate thing - they are linked (not even
> just relocated) at insertion time, so they need to be tracked
> separately.
The reasons I gave was why _text relocation didn't work properly for
systemtap. The first paragraph was just giving a precis of history
explaining to Arnaldo why he remembered there was a problem with _text
based relocations.
> The statement that a _text-based relocation is insufficient is false.
> The entire x86-32 monolithic kernel is relocated as a unit. The
> x86-64 kernel, too, is relocated as a unit, but using the page tables,
> which means it always runs at the compile-time-selected virtual
> address.
Confused now ... you just repeated what I said in the second paragraph,
but made it sound like you are disagreeing?
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