Re: [PATCH] x86-64: fix build with older binutils

[H. Peter Anvin]

Jan Beulich wrote:
> 
> Yeah, the placement of .init.start appears to be wrong - it should the
> SMP/x86-64 case of the per-CPU segment, and it should also be the
> one getting the :init attached. Hopefully that won't get us back to the
> binutils problem I was originally encountering - what is the extra .init.start
> section good for anyway? And why does __init_end continue to live
> outside of any section (this sort of thing causes problems with
> CONFIG_RELOCATABLE and older binutils afair, as such symbols get
> marked absolute by the latter)? While this was the case (and a mistake)
> for x86-64 prior to the merge, it was properly placed in a section for
> ix86, and hence I'd view it as a regression there.
> 
> Btw., why is .data.nosave being placed differently for 32- and 64-bit?
> 

Probably for no good reason, but it might need additional fixes.

	-hpa

-- 
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel.  I don't speak on their behalf.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/