On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 10:30:19AM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Tim Abbott <tabbott@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 13:27:43 -0400 (EDT)
>
> > On Wed, 16 Sep 2009, David Miller wrote:
> >
> >> Can you do this cleanup without moving the relative locations of .data
> >> and .data1 sections?
> >
> > Yes, if you just swap RW_DATA_SECTION and .data1 so it looks like
> >
> > RW_DATA_SECTION(SMP_CACHE_BYTES, 0, THREAD_SIZE)
> > .data1 : {
> > *(.data1)
> > }
> >
> > instead, that would preserve their relative locations.
> >
> > Currently, switching to RW_DATA_SECTION would still result in a change in
> > their relative position that .data.page_aligned and .data.nosave would be
> > between .data and .data1 (not sure if that is relevant on sparc). (this
> > will change when <http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/9/16/396> is merged).
>
> I don't know which, if any, are relevant or could cause problems.
>
> It's hard for me to ACK this because it's not a straight nop
> transformation, which we could at least presume would function
> properly if the macros were implemented correctly.
As you most likely are aware the linker scripts has diverged a lot
over time between different architectures.
So whatever fits the ordering of one architecture fails on another
architecture.
Tim is doing a huge effort to bring some sanity into this
area which I appreciate a lot!
Sam
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
