[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTikGVS9EM=7uhwYfXrGHg9yzes7m0pxAinRxivPC@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 09:45:37 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@...are.com>
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 9:31 AM, Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@...are.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
I still don't see the problem.
Have you actually _tried_ just adding the proper alignment to before
the __modver thing in include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h ?
As far as I can tell, the bug is really simple:
- the section is not aligned
- but we told the compiler that that structure is aligned
End result: there is a gap between the section start and the first structure.
And the fix seems obvious: just make sure that the section is
sufficiently aligned.
IOW, why isn't the proper fix the obvious trivial one (attached)?
Linus
View attachment "patch.diff" of type "text/x-patch" (744 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists