Eric W. Biederman wrote:
quoted text
> Mike Travis <travis@sgi.com> writes:
...
quoted text
>> Can we generate a new symbol which would account for LOAD_OFFSET?
> 
> Ouch.  Absolute symbols indeed.  On the 32bit kernel that may play havoc
> with the relocatable kernel, although we have had similar absolute logic
> for the last year. With __per_cpu_start and __per_cpu_end so it may
> not be a problem.
> 
> To initialize the percpu data you do want to talk to the virtual address
> at __per_coup_load.  But it is absolute Ugh.  
> 
> It might be worth saying something like.
> .data.percpu.start : AT(.data.percpu.dummy - LOAD_OFFSET) {
> 	DATA(0)                   
> 	. = ALIGN(align);
>         __per_cpu_load = . ;                   
> }
> To make __per_cpu_load a relative symbol. ld has a bad habit of taking
> symbols out of empty sections and making them absolute.  Which is why
> I added the DATA(0).
> 
> Still I don't think that would be the 64bit problem.
> 
> Eric

FYI, I did try this out and it caused the bootloader to scramble the
loaded data.  The first corruption I found was the .x86cpuvendor.init
section contained all zeroes.

Mike
--
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/