Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753721Ab2FLSVE (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jun 2012 14:21:04 -0400 Received: from caramon.arm.linux.org.uk ([78.32.30.218]:54979 "EHLO caramon.arm.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751181Ab2FLSVC (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jun 2012 14:21:02 -0400 Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 19:20:36 +0100 From: Russell King - ARM Linux To: David Brown Cc: Kukjin Kim , Eric Miao , Arnd Bergmann , linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Tomasz Figa , Paul Gortmaker , Paulo Marques , Uwe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleine-K=F6nig?= , Jon Masters , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: two possible fixes for the KALLSYMS build problem Message-ID: <20120612182036.GE7918@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <1338567721-19514-1-git-send-email-davidb@codeaurora.org> <20120611203748.GA16967@codeaurora.org> <20120612143249.GB7918@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20120612160229.GA21389@codeaurora.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120612160229.GA21389@codeaurora.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1543 Lines: 44 On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 09:02:29AM -0700, David Brown wrote: > On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 03:32:49PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 01:37:48PM -0700, David Brown wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 09:21:59AM -0700, David Brown wrote: > > > > > > > David Brown (1): > > > > ARM: Prevent KALLSYM size mismatch on ARM. > > > > > > > > arch/arm/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S | 3 +++ > > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > > > > > Just wondering if anyone has had a chance to look at either of these, > > > or try them. I haven't seen any KALLSYMS mismatch build errors with > > > either of these patches applied. > > > > I think variant 2 is the better approach out of either as it doesn't add > > to the size of the resulting kernel image. > > The first variant doesn't ever increase the size of the kernel, > either. Variant two actually makes it a little smaller, since a few > symbols are eliminated. Ok. > The second variant is cleaner, though as long as it is safe in every > configuration. Well, we don't have any per-CPU data unless we're building for SMP. See: #ifndef PER_CPU_BASE_SECTION #ifdef CONFIG_SMP #define PER_CPU_BASE_SECTION ".data..percpu" #else #define PER_CPU_BASE_SECTION ".data" #endif #endif in include/asm-generic/percpu.h. -- 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/