On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 10:56:48 -0400 (EDT) David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > From: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxxxx> > Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 00:33:39 +1000 > > > On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 10:13:06 -0400 (EDT) > > David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> From: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxxxx> > >> Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 18:41:16 +1000 > >> > >> > Is there any way for the linker to place the inputs to avoid unresolvable > >> > relocations where possible? > >> > >> I don't think so. > >> > >> > A way to work around this is to make arch/sparc/lib/hweight.o an obj-y > >> > rather than lib-y. That's a hack because it just serves to move the > >> > input location, but not really any more of a hack than the current code > >> > that also only works because of input locations... > >> > >> I could adjust those branches in the sparc code into indirect calls > >> but it's going to perform a bit poorly on older cpus. > > > > The build succeeds with your patch. That should solve it properly > > so it won't come back to bite again. > > > > If you can tolerate the slowdown on old CPUs I'd be grateful if > > we could merge it for linux-next to get this thin archives tree > > unblocked. > > Feel free to merge it into your series: > > ==================== > sparc64: Use indirect calls in hamming weight stubs. > > Otherwise, depending upon link order, the branch relocation > limits could be exceeded. > > Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Thanks for the patch, looks good to me. -- 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
