[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9DA5872FEF993D41B7173F58FCF6BE9409F70604@orsmsx504.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 07:37:46 -0800
From: "Lu, Hongjiu" <hongjiu.lu@...el.com>
To: "Anvin, H Peter" <h.peter.anvin@...el.com>,
"Li, Shaohua" <shaohua.li@...el.com>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@...ppelsdorf.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
Subject: RE: Linux 2.6.38-rc1 doesn't boot
Or we can just ban those broken linker versions.
H.J.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anvin, H Peter
> Sent: Friday, January 21, 2011 7:29 AM
> To: Li, Shaohua
> Cc: Ingo Molnar; Markus Trippelsdorf; Lu, Hongjiu; Linus Torvalds;
> Linux Kernel Mailing List; Sam Ravnborg
> Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.38-rc1 doesn't boot
>
> On 01/20/2011 11:18 PM, Li, Shaohua wrote:
> > *(.jiffies)
> > }
> > jiffies = VVIRT(.jiffies);
> > + jiffies_64 = jiffies;
> >
>
> OK, this is just messed up. If we need jiffies in a special section
> then we should declare it as such (see __jiffy_data), but it's not
> clear
> to me why we would. This seems like hack upon hack.
>
> However, I suspect we may want to put jiffies into a .S file, and that
> .S file needs to take into account architectures which need underscore
> prefixes (which really sucks to have in ELF and is a major fail on
> those
> ABI designers...)
>
> -hpa
Powered by blists - more mailing lists