[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110217173136.GA28486@dtor-ws.eng.vmware.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 09:31:36 -0800
From: Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@...are.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Linux/m68k <linux-m68k@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-Arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] module: deal with alignment issues in built-in
module versions
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 09:24:58AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@...are.com> wrote:
> >
> > Moreover, as DaveM said, we can't reliably put structures into
> > independent objects, put them into a special section, and then expect
> > array access over them (via the section boundaries) after linking the
> > objects together to just "work" due to variable alignment choices in
> > different situations.
>
> Why not?
>
> That's what we normally do. Just align the "__modver", and you should
> be all good. What's the problem?
>From what I understand __attribute__ ((aligned(x))) only guarantees
minimum alignment, not exact (gapless) alignment. GCC seems to lay out
pointers in the section without gaps on all arches that we have.
Thanks.
--
Dmitry
--
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