Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Wed, 31 Dec 2008, Helge Deller wrote: >> [PATCH 1/2] module.c: fix module loading failure of large kernel modules >> >> When creating the final layout of a kernel module in memory, allow the >> module loader to reserve some additional memory in front of a given section. >> This is currently only needed for the parisc port which needs to put the >> stub entries there to fulfill the 17/22bit PCREL relocations with large >> kernel modules like xfs. >> >> Differences of this patch to previous versions: >> - added weak funtion arch_module_section_size() > > This doesn't work. > > We've had this bug several times now, and one of them just very recently. > > Some gcc versions will inline weak functions if they are in scope - even > if there is a non-weak function somewhere else. So you MUST NOT have the > weak definition in the same file (or indirectly called through some inline > functions in a header file) as the call. Because if you do, then any user > with the wrong version of gcc will get the weak function semantics, even > if it was meant to be overridden by something else. Ok, that might explain why I saw some strange things in the unwind tables after that I switched to using the weak function (hppa-crosscompiler, gcc-3.3.4). >> +/* Additional bytes needed by arch in front of individual sections */ >> +unsigned int __attribute__ ((weak)) arch_module_section_size( >> + struct module *mod, unsigned int section) > > We don't write out that whole "__attribute__" crud. We use > > unsigned in __weak arch_module_section_size(struct module *mod, unsigned int section) > > instead. Ok. > But as mentioned, it needs to be in another compilation unit. Understood. Rusty, back to you for an advise on how to continue ;-) (I assume Rusty is just right now celebrating new-year) Helge -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-parisc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
