Re: [PATCH] Restructure BSS linker script macros.

Paul Mundt
2009-07-20T14:40:23Z

On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 12:13:36AM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 06:58:50PM -0400, Tim Abbott wrote:
> > On Thu, 16 Jul 2009, Tim Abbott wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 16 Jul 2009, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 06:23:33PM -0400, Tim Abbott wrote:
> > > > > I'd like acks from Sam and David on this one. Also CCing Paul, since
> > > > > he has a patch from me which will need to be updated to use
> > > > > BSS_SECTION(0, PAGE_SIZE, 4) once this gets merged.
> > [...]
> > > > Could you please resend including the necessary fix for mn10300 so we do not
> > > > break bisecting.
> > >
> > > I don't understand what you're asking here. The original patch I sent
> > > does include the necessary fix for mn10300 in the first hunk (reproduced
> > > below). I intentionally changed the mn10300 use at the same time as
> > > changing the macros in order to avoid breaking bisecting.
> >
> > I realized that you probably meant that I should resend the sh patch that
> > I have currently in linux-next via Paul's tree that is broken by this
> > change.
> >
> > Paul -- the patch below differs from the version have in two ways:
> > (1) I updated it to use the fixed BSS linker script macros from this
> > thread.
> > (2) I dropped the hunk that conflicted with a similar change in the percpu
> > tree[2], as the version of that change in the percpu tree is better.
>
> I do not expect Tejun's work to be included until next merge window.
> It would be nice if we could queue up a lot of vmlinux.lds
> cleanup patches so they are ready for next merge window.
> But we should rely on the arch maintainers mostly - as you nicely
> have done for sh here.
>
I've pulled your kbuild-fixes.git in to a topic branch with Tim's
BSS_SECTION fix applied over top of it, this seemed like the easiest way
to keep my tree building both in and out of -next. Once kbuild-fixes hits
Linus's tree it should all sort itself out anyways.