On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 09:33:56AM +0000, Dave Martin wrote: >> Agreed -- actually, I suspected we might need to support this. But I >> don't think solving this problem (= keeping the fixup implementation >> in memory and enhancing the module loader) solved the >> fixups-referencing-sections-discarded-from-vmlinux problem. These >> seem to be two separate issues. I am filing to understand something? > > They are separate, but related issues. They both ultimately have the > same cause - the placement of the spinlock code inline rather than > out of line, resulting in fixups appearing all over the place rather > than just in kernel/spinlock.o. I guess what I want to understand is whether I (or someone) still need(s) to sort out the vmlinux.lds issue. If we're keeping inline spinlocks (I currently assume "yes"), then the vmlinux.lds issue still needs fixing. Is that correct? However, if we get rid of inline spinlocks we won't have the problem, though there may be some performance impact -- hard to judge how significant. Apologies if I'm being dense here... Cheers ---Dave -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
