On 05/07/2018 07:49 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Sun, May 6, 2018 at 11:59 PM Masahiro Yamada <
yamada.masahiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
2018-03-30 21:40 GMT+09:00 Mark Wielaard <mjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
On Thu, 2018-03-29 at 11:01 -0700, Laura Abbott wrote:
I'm still mostly looking for feedback whether
this would be acceptable for merging or if we should just persue a
--build-id-salt in binutils.
Personally I would go with this approach. It seems simple and it might
take years before a new linker option is available everywhere.
Indeed. This series is easier than --build-id-salt.
If you do not see any better solution, I can accept this.
BTW, when I read
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ParallelInstallableDebuginfo
I thought "we could reverse the symlink direction from debug file to
build-id file)"
sensible (but I understand it is not easy to change this way).
If two packages share an identical image,
one package can borrow the image from the other,
then the storage space will be saved.
So, having identical ID should be advantage,
but we actually see only disadvantage...
To simplify things I think you could just always add the extra vdso
.comment initialized to something like KERNELRELEASE. Which distros
seem to update anyway to include their build number, so they wouldn't
need to do anything special to "update the build salt".
That's what I was thinking, too. Would that solve Fedora's problem?
Yes, that seems reasonable.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kbuild" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
