Re: [PATCH] blackfin: Cleanup linker script using new linkerscript macros.

[Sam Ravnborg]

On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 11:58:01AM -0400, Tim Abbott wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Sep 2009, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> 
> > the larger padding in the initramfs is kind of annoying as i cant see
> > any need to pad it to PAGE_SIZE.  since the initramfs is released with
> > the rest of the init section, it doesnt need whole pages.  a quick
> > test shows that it does waste a few kb in reality.  default build for
> > BF533-STAMP for example shows 0x1000 difference.
> > 
> > in terms of correctness, this change misses a reference to the now
> > deleted .init.ramfs:
> > -       .init.ramfs :
> > -       {
> > -       .....
> > -       }
> > -
> >        .text_l1 L1_CODE_START : AT(LOADADDR(.init.ramfs) + SIZEOF(.init.ramfs))
> > 
> > so that .text_l1 needs to updated to refer to the new section before
> > it (.exit.data in this case).  once i make that change, the resulting
> > link looks the same (minus the initramfs thing mentioned earlier), and
> > it does boot.
> 
> OK.  I guess we should plan to modify the INIT_DATA_SECTION macro to add 
> another argument specifying an alignment level for .init.ramfs.  It'd be 
> inconvenient to add that right now since there are a lot of patches in 
> linux-next or otherwise in flight that introduce uses of 
> INIT_DATA_SECTION, and those patches would all be broken by changing this 
> now.  Once the dust settles on that for this release, I'll submit a patch 
> adding said argument to INIT_DATA_SECTION.

But this is all discarded during runtime so the added alignment has no cost in the end - no?

	Sam
--
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/