remove unneccessary use of RELOC_HIDE(). It does simple addition of ptr and
offset and in this case (offset 0) does practically nothing. It does NOT do
anything with linker relocation.

Signed-off-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@gmail.com>
---
 arch/mips/include/asm/page.h |    2 +-
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/mips/include/asm/page.h b/arch/mips/include/asm/page.h
index a16beaf..f7e2684 100644
--- a/arch/mips/include/asm/page.h
+++ b/arch/mips/include/asm/page.h
@@ -150,7 +150,7 @@ typedef struct { unsigned long pgprot; } pgprot_t;
     ((unsigned long)(x) - PAGE_OFFSET + PHYS_OFFSET)
 #endif
 #define __va(x)		((void *)((unsigned long)(x) + PAGE_OFFSET - PHYS_OFFSET))
-#define __pa_symbol(x)	__pa(RELOC_HIDE((unsigned long)(x), 0))
+#define __pa_symbol(x)	__pa(x)
 
 #define pfn_to_kaddr(pfn)	__va((pfn) << PAGE_SHIFT)
 
-- 
1.7.0.4

--

[ message continues ]

Maybe you could explain in more detail the problems you are having with 
the current definition of __pa_symbol().  I would be hesitant to change 
this bit of black magic unless there is a concrete problem you are 
trying to solve.


--

[ message continues ]

RELOC_HIDE was originally added by 6007b903dfe5f1d13e0c711ac2894bdd4a61b1ad
(lmo) rsp. 8431fd094d625b94d364fe393076ccef88e6ce18 (kernel.org).  A
discussion can be found in lkml posting
a2ebde260608230500o3407b108hc03debb9da6e62c@mail.gmail.com> which is
archived at

    http://lists.linuxcoding.com/kernel/2006-q3/msg17360.html

I felt this was dubious by the time it was added and probably should go?

  Ralf
--

[ message continues ]

Hi,

I've sent basically same patch to x86 folks [1] and they said there is a
possiblility of miscompilation on gcc 3. I am not sure the same goes
here on mips but it might be safer to keep it. Sorry for the noise ;-(

[1] http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/8/8/138


-- 
Regards,
Namhyung Kim


--

[ message continues ]

So in a distant future when GCC 3.x will finally be retired we will be
able to apply this patch, sigh.  I'll drop your patch for the time being
and add a comment to the code.

Thanks!

  Ralf
--

[ message continues ]

FYI, the exact version introduced -f[no-]strict-overlow was gcc 4.2.

-- 
Regards,
Namhyung Kim


--

[ message continues ]