[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110217221957.GA11244@dtor-ws.eng.vmware.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 14:19:57 -0800
From: Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@...are.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: "torvalds@...ux-foundation.org" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"geert@...ux-m68k.org" <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
"rusty@...tcorp.com.au" <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
"linux-m68k@...r.kernel.org" <linux-m68k@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <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 02:01:19PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
> Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 13:54:57 -0800
>
> > Is there a -fdata-align or something? Or would __attribute__((packed))
> > help? Something that explicitly tells gcc "don't do this", instead of
> > "let's add indirection and hope gcc doesn't add alignment for _that_".
> > Especially as the extra pointer makes the code even uglier.
>
> The tracing folks went down the path of trying to use packed in
> various ways, to no avail, because no matter what they tried it broke
> other things.
>
> > And if we do have to use the pointer thing, let's at least then do the
> > pointer with asms, so that gcc _really_ can't screw it up. Rather than
> > just move the potential bug around.
>
> That's fine with me.
Any pointers as to how to emit these pointers with asm?
--
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