On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Yep -- I'm still applying my original patch to work around that, but it sounds like I need to tidy that up. Can you elaborate on what you meant by defining a "KEEP_EXIT" macro to handle this? > >> 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. That's fine -- just wanted to make sure I had the right understanding. 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
