On Wed, 2008-08-13 at 12:47 +1000, Simon Horman wrote: > On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 09:04:35AM +0800, Huang Ying wrote: > > Fix building issue when CONFIG_KEXEC=n. Thanks to Vivek Goyal for his > > reminding. > > > > Signed-off-by: Huang Ying <ying.huang at intel.com> > > > > --- > > include/asm-x86/kexec.h | 3 +++ > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > > > --- a/include/asm-x86/kexec.h > > +++ b/include/asm-x86/kexec.h > > @@ -43,6 +43,9 @@ > > > > #ifdef CONFIG_X86_32 > > # define KEXEC_CONTROL_CODE_MAX_SIZE 2048 > > +# ifndef CONFIG_KEXEC > > +# define kexec_control_code_size 0 > > +# endif > > #endif > > > > #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__ > > Is it impossible to skip the linker check in the !CONFIG_KEXEC case? It is possible. I think there are several ways to do that. 1) use #ifdef in vmlinux_32.lds.S, such as: #ifdef CONFIG_KEXEC ASSERT(kexec_control_code_size <= KEXEC_CONTROL_CODE_MAX_SIZE, "kexec control code size is too big") #endif 2) #define a macro for kexec check ld script in asm/kexec.h, such as: #define LD_CHECK_KEXEC() ASSERT(kexec_control_code_size <= KEXEC_CONTROL_CODE_MAX_SIZE, \ "kexec control code size is too big") and use that in vmlinux_32.lds.S. 3) #define kexec_control_code_size 0. So that the check can be passed always. And, code size = 0 is reasonable for no code (CONFIG_KEXEC=n). I think 3) is better. What do you think about? Best Regards, Huang Ying