[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140811181543.GD1863@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 14:15:43 -0400
From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Shaun Ruffell <sruffell@...ium.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kexec@...ts.infradead.org, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
mjg59@...f.ucam.org, greg@...ah.com, bp@...en8.de,
dyoung@...hat.com, chaowang@...hat.com, bhe@...hat.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/15] purgatory: Core purgatory functionality
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 11:08:48AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 08/11/2014 11:02 AM, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> >
> > Hi hpa,
> >
> > I took it because kexec-tools uses it and in one of the committs Eric
> > gave following reasoning.
> >
> > On x86_64 use -mcmodel=large so that the code is built without
> > any 32bit assumptions. -mcmodel=medium and -mcmodel=small
> > result int code that has 32bit relocations against variables
> > that can live anywhere in the address space
> >
> > We do want to load purgatory anywhere in the address space.
> >
> > But if there are other ways to achieve the same thing, I will do that
> > change.
> >
> > So when you say "small PIC", I need to use -mcmodel=small and -fPIC?
> >
>
> Actually -fPIE is probably better than -fPIC.
>
> -mcmodel=large is incompatible with all other code out there, which
> means that even though it is supposed to work it will be poorly tested
> at best. So even despite the gcc version issue, using the small PIC
> model would be better.
Ok, I will give it a try.
Thanks
Vivek
--
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