Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 01:20:21 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 01:20:21 -0500 Received: from [212.209.10.215] ([212.209.10.215]:36813 "EHLO miranda.axis.se") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 01:20:20 -0500 Message-ID: <3C6BEE8B5E1BAC42905A93F13004E8AB017DE61A@mailse01.axis.se> From: Mikael Starvik To: "'Kai Germaschewski'" , "'Sam Ravnborg'" Cc: "'Ingo Oeser'" , "'ebiederm@xmission.com'" , "'linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org'" Subject: RE: [RFC] Consolidate vmlinux.lds.S files Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 07:27:55 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org I see no problem in wasting 12 more bytes on CRIS. We have an ALIGN(8192) later in the file so the extra 12 bytes kind of disappears in the noise. So, you don't have to make any special hacks for us. But maybe it is still a good idea to keep it controllable per arch? I don't know, it's up to you. /Mikael (CRIS maintainer) -----Original Message----- From: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org]On Behalf Of Kai Germaschewski Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 12:06 AM To: Sam Ravnborg Cc: Ingo Oeser; ebiederm@xmission.com; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Consolidate vmlinux.lds.S files On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Sam Ravnborg wrote: > > I would suggest an approach like the following, of course showing only a > > first simple step. > > But you do not deal with different alingment of the sections. > I have not yet fully understood all the requirements, but wanted to > keep the original ALIGN settings. > In the patch you posted some architectures use ALIGN(4) {cris}, > other nothing, but most of them ALIGN(16). > Is it OK to force them all to ALIGN(16) then? Well, forcing them to a larger alignment surely won't break anything, except for wasting 12 bytes on cris. But in general, you're right, not of all of this is trivial to share due to these small differences. In the cases where it's necessary, we could do something like (for CRIS) #define EXTABLE_ALIGN 4 (in generic code) #ifndef EXTABLE_ALIGN #define EXTABLE_ALIGN 16 #endif Of course, one could also do EXTABLE(4) and EXTABLE(16), respectively, but I think it's less obvious to the occasional reader that these magic numbers are about alignment. > > A series of steps like this should allow for a serious > > reduction in size of arch/*/vmlinux.lds.S already, while being obviously > > correct and allowing archs to do their own special thing if necessary (in > > particular, IA64 seems to differ from all the other archs). > > My main objective was that adding new stuff, like __gpl_ksyms could > be done in one place only. > Or .gnu.linkonce.vermagic, or whatever will be used for that. Yes, and that's why I think that separating out and sharing these bits is a very good idea. Actually, separating out the ksymtab etc code should be really easy, as opposed to other stuff where there's more substantial differences between the archs. It'll be a rather long and tedious process to do this work, but I think it's worth it. --Kai - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/