* [PATCH] x86, vdso: SHN_LORESERVE is an inclusive lower bound
@ 2011-04-25 14:28 Anders Kaseorg
2011-04-25 22:11 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Anders Kaseorg @ 2011-04-25 14:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thomas Gleixner, Ingo Molnar, H. Peter Anvin, x86
Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge, linux-kernel
Test for >= SHN_LORESERVE instead of > SHN_LORESERVE.
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <andersk@ksplice.com>
---
arch/x86/vdso/vdso32-setup.c | 2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/vdso/vdso32-setup.c b/arch/x86/vdso/vdso32-setup.c
index 468d591..226bfad 100644
--- a/arch/x86/vdso/vdso32-setup.c
+++ b/arch/x86/vdso/vdso32-setup.c
@@ -88,7 +88,7 @@ static __init void reloc_symtab(Elf32_Ehdr *ehdr,
sym->st_shndx == SHN_ABS)
continue; /* skip */
- if (sym->st_shndx > SHN_LORESERVE) {
+ if (sym->st_shndx >= SHN_LORESERVE) {
printk(KERN_INFO "VDSO: unexpected st_shndx %x\n",
sym->st_shndx);
continue;
--
1.7.5.rc3
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] x86, vdso: SHN_LORESERVE is an inclusive lower bound
2011-04-25 14:28 [PATCH] x86, vdso: SHN_LORESERVE is an inclusive lower bound Anders Kaseorg
@ 2011-04-25 22:11 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2011-04-25 23:18 ` Anders Kaseorg
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge @ 2011-04-25 22:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Anders Kaseorg
Cc: Thomas Gleixner, Ingo Molnar, H. Peter Anvin, x86, linux-kernel
On 04/25/2011 07:28 AM, Anders Kaseorg wrote:
> Test for >= SHN_LORESERVE instead of > SHN_LORESERVE.
Yep, seems reasonable. Did this cause a problem, or is it just
something you noticed?
J
> Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <andersk@ksplice.com>
> ---
> arch/x86/vdso/vdso32-setup.c | 2 +-
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/vdso/vdso32-setup.c b/arch/x86/vdso/vdso32-setup.c
> index 468d591..226bfad 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/vdso/vdso32-setup.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/vdso/vdso32-setup.c
> @@ -88,7 +88,7 @@ static __init void reloc_symtab(Elf32_Ehdr *ehdr,
> sym->st_shndx == SHN_ABS)
> continue; /* skip */
>
> - if (sym->st_shndx > SHN_LORESERVE) {
> + if (sym->st_shndx >= SHN_LORESERVE) {
> printk(KERN_INFO "VDSO: unexpected st_shndx %x\n",
> sym->st_shndx);
> continue;
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] x86, vdso: SHN_LORESERVE is an inclusive lower bound
2011-04-25 22:11 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
@ 2011-04-25 23:18 ` Anders Kaseorg
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Anders Kaseorg @ 2011-04-25 23:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge
Cc: Thomas Gleixner, Ingo Molnar, H. Peter Anvin, x86, linux-kernel
On Mon, 25 Apr 2011, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> On 04/25/2011 07:28 AM, Anders Kaseorg wrote:
> > Test for >= SHN_LORESERVE instead of > SHN_LORESERVE.
>
> Yep, seems reasonable. Did this cause a problem, or is it just
> something you noticed?
I just noticed it (while writing “modpost: Update 64k section support for
binutils 2.18.50”: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1130613 ).
Anders
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-04-25 23:18 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2011-04-25 14:28 [PATCH] x86, vdso: SHN_LORESERVE is an inclusive lower bound Anders Kaseorg
2011-04-25 22:11 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2011-04-25 23:18 ` Anders Kaseorg
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.