[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wiFoT7wKiGDui4zt1xCcXq14KovYzoZd_3iujy2ksr1Jg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2020 18:23:16 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>
Cc: linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] RISC-V Patches for the 5.10 Merge Window, Part 1
On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 12:08 PM Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com> wrote:
>
> There is one merge conflict, which is between my fixes and for-next branches:
>
> diff --cc arch/riscv/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S
> index 67db80e12d1f,9795359cb9da..ffaa3da375c2
> --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S
> +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S
> @@@ -66,8 -71,11 +70,13 @@@ SECTION
> _etext = .;
> }
>
> + INIT_DATA_SECTION(16)
> +
> + #ifdef CONFIG_EFI
> + . = ALIGN(PECOFF_SECTION_ALIGNMENT);
> + __pecoff_text_end = .;
> + #endif
> +
> /* Start of data section */
> _sdata = .;
> RO_DATA(SECTION_ALIGN)
Hmm.
I put the INIT_DATA_SECTION after the __pecoff_text_end symbol. I
don't think INIT_DATA_SECTION should be considered text
I suspect it doesn't matter, but if there is some odd dependency that
I missed, this is a heads-up that my resolution doesn't look exactly
like the above.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists