On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 10:52:17AM +0000, Dave Martin wrote: > 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. Yes we do - if you build your kernel you should find that your link fails because of discarded sections being referenced. > 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. I don't see that we can get rid of inline spinlocks - it's controlled by stuff external to the arch. -- 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
