[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180323133448.GA3434@kroah.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 14:34:48 +0100
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Daniel Kurtz <djkurtz@...omium.org>
Cc: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>,
Guenter Roeck <groeck@...omium.org>, adurbin@...omium.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Fix __earlycon_table stride... again
On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 11:57:10AM -0600, Daniel Kurtz wrote:
> The __earlycon_table lives in a special "__earlycon_table" section. The
> contents of this table are added using some macros that deposit individual
> struct earlycon_id entries into this section. The linker then defines a symbol
> __earlycon_table that is supposed to contain the addresss of the first of these
> entries. The code in earlycon.c and fdt.c then tries to access the memory
> pointed to by __earlycon_table as an array of struct earlycon_id entries.
>
> Unfortunately, the compiler doesn't always place the entries such that they
> are an array. Let's fix that.
>
> Patch 1 of the series is a fix that should hopefully fix a kbuild error that
> seems to be triggered by Patch 2.
Doesn't seem like that worked :(
And I have a bunch of different versions of this patch in my to-review
queue, and I can't figure out which is the "latest" one.
Can you resend it, after getting the build error fixed, so I know which
to attempt to apply?
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists