On Tue, 25 Sep 2007, Andy Whitcroft wrote:

quoted text
> As suggested elsewhere I have had a go at tracking this down.  Previous 
> problems of this kind were introduced as a result of using 'weak' 
> declarations to provide default implementations.  This investigation led 
> me to the following commit:
>   commit c60473b5d32ea6cf4561232bc852bacd3a513528
>   Author: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>
>   Date:   Sat Sep 15 01:49:49 2007 +0000
>     i386-and-x86_64-randomize-brk
> Backing this change out seems to get us past this problem.  If we are to 
> support compilers of this age, and I believe we currently do, then we 
> probabally need to avoid the weak declarations and use the Kconfig 
> system to provide the alternatives here.
> Jiri?

Hi,

actually, my first patch wasn't using weak symbols, but I have been 
convinced that it's the way to go(tm). Please see 
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/9/1/131 and the ongoing thread.

I am fine with replacing the brk randomization patch with the one that 
wasn't using weak symbols (posted in the mentioned thread too), I have no 
strong opinion either way.

Thanks,

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