[PATCH] x86: wakeup.lds.S - section ordering fix

[PATCH] x86: wakeup.lds.S - section ordering fix

[Cyrill Gorcunov]

To allow linker to catch sections overlapping we have to declare
them in appropriate order.

Signed-off-by: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>
---

Please test and review

Index: linux-2.6.git/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/realmode/wakeup.lds.S
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.git.orig/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/realmode/wakeup.lds.S	2008-05-11 20:21:58.000000000 +0400
+++ linux-2.6.git/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/realmode/wakeup.lds.S	2008-05-11 22:34:42.000000000 +0400
@@ -12,11 +12,6 @@ ENTRY(_start)
 
 SECTIONS
 {
-	. = HEADER_OFFSET;
-	.header : {
-		 *(.header)
-	}
-
 	. = 0;
 	.text : {
 		 *(.text*)
@@ -50,6 +45,11 @@ SECTIONS
 		__bss_end = .;
 	}
 
+	. = HEADER_OFFSET;
+	.header : {
+		*(.header)
+	}
+
 	. = ALIGN(16);
 	_end = .;
 

Re: [PATCH] x86: wakeup.lds.S - section ordering fix

[Pavel Machek]

On Sun 2008-05-11 22:46:38, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> To allow linker to catch sections overlapping we have to declare
> them in appropriate order.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>
> ---
> 
> Please test and review

Looks okay to me, but I can't easily test it right now.

But I think Rafael tested identical patch, you can add my ACK in such
case.

								Pavel

> Index: linux-2.6.git/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/realmode/wakeup.lds.S
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.git.orig/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/realmode/wakeup.lds.S	2008-05-11 20:21:58.000000000 +0400
> +++ linux-2.6.git/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/realmode/wakeup.lds.S	2008-05-11 22:34:42.000000000 +0400
> @@ -12,11 +12,6 @@ ENTRY(_start)
>  
>  SECTIONS
>  {
> -	. = HEADER_OFFSET;
> -	.header : {
> -		 *(.header)
> -	}
> -
>  	. = 0;
>  	.text : {
>  		 *(.text*)
> @@ -50,6 +45,11 @@ SECTIONS
>  		__bss_end = .;
>  	}
>  
> +	. = HEADER_OFFSET;
> +	.header : {
> +		*(.header)
> +	}
> +
>  	. = ALIGN(16);
>  	_end = .;
>  

-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

Re: [PATCH] x86: wakeup.lds.S - section ordering fix

[Cyrill Gorcunov]

[Pavel Machek - Mon, May 12, 2008 at 03:53:43PM +0200]
| On Sun 2008-05-11 22:46:38, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
| > To allow linker to catch sections overlapping we have to declare
| > them in appropriate order.
| > 
| > Signed-off-by: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>
| > ---
| > 
| > Please test and review
| 
| Looks okay to me, but I can't easily test it right now.
| 
| But I think Rafael tested identical patch, you can add my ACK in such
| case.
| 
| 								Pavel
| 

Yes, Rafael tested the same (in contents) patch. Actually there was
a bit time-screwed situation - I've proposed a solution, Peter was
agreed with, I said him that I'll cook a patch, meanwhile I've got an internet
connection problem, and at moment Rafael tested the same patch he made by own.
A bit funny situation ;) So I think in this patch should be then:

Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl>
Signed-off-by: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Pavel Machek <pavel@suse.cz>

Anyway, thanks to all being involved ;)

		- Cyrill -

Re: [PATCH] x86: wakeup.lds.S - section ordering fix

[Ingo Molnar]

* Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com> wrote:

> [Pavel Machek - Mon, May 12, 2008 at 03:53:43PM +0200]
> | On Sun 2008-05-11 22:46:38, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> | > To allow linker to catch sections overlapping we have to declare
> | > them in appropriate order.
> | > 
> | > Signed-off-by: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>
> | > ---
> | > 
> | > Please test and review
> | 
> | Looks okay to me, but I can't easily test it right now.
> | 
> | But I think Rafael tested identical patch, you can add my ACK in such
> | case.
> 
> Yes, Rafael tested the same (in contents) patch. Actually there was a 
> bit time-screwed situation - I've proposed a solution, Peter was 
> agreed with, I said him that I'll cook a patch, meanwhile I've got an 
> internet connection problem, and at moment Rafael tested the same 
> patch he made by own. A bit funny situation ;) So I think in this 
> patch should be then:

applied, thanks.

	Ingo