* Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Catalin,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the kmemleak tree got a conflict in
> arch/x86/kernel/vmlinux_32.lds.S arch/x86/kernel/vmlinux_64.lds.S between
> commit 091e52c3551d3031343df24b573b770b4c6c72b6 ("x86, vmlinux.lds: unify
> remaining parts") from the x86 tree and commit
> 31df83f3f517b8ae49ba1f3fe9d5e3dd108a3e37 ("x86: Provide _sdata in the
> vmlinux_*.lds.S files") from the kmemleak tree.
>
> The former commit merges the two files while the latter modifies them.
> I applied the patch below to the merged file. I can carry this as
> necessary.
> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S b/arch/x86/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S
> index 4c85b2e..0bbb2d1 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S
> @@ -107,6 +107,7 @@ SECTIONS
>
> /* Data */
> . = ALIGN(PAGE_SIZE);
> + _sdata = .; /* Start of data section */
> .data : AT(ADDR(.data) - LOAD_OFFSET) {
> DATA_DATA
> CONSTRUCTORS
At a quick glance, that line should be moved a line further down, to
avoid a boot crash of linux-next with CONFIG_RELOCATABLE=y (which
most distros ship with).
The kmemleak tree change should be submitted to the x86 tree as
well, so we can merge it properly. (it's fine if the kmemleak tree
has that commit too [it obviously needs it] - so there will still be
a conflict - just the resolution will be a straightforward 'pick the
x86 tree side' step.)
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
