From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755006AbZHYOOP (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Aug 2009 10:14:15 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752926AbZHYOOP (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Aug 2009 10:14:15 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:59350 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750759AbZHYOOO (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Aug 2009 10:14:14 -0400 Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 16:14:05 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Jan Beulich Cc: tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com Subject: Re: [tip:x86/urgent] x86: Fix build with older binutils andconsolidate linker script Message-ID: <20090825141405.GA14879@elte.hu> References: <4A8AEA1F0200007800010563@vpn.id2.novell.com> <20090825075029.GA857@elte.hu> <4A9408FC02000078000119B1@vpn.id2.novell.com> <20090825135651.GA22484@elte.hu> <4A940AE502000078000119C5@vpn.id2.novell.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4A940AE502000078000119C5@vpn.id2.novell.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> Ingo Molnar 25.08.09 15:56 >>> > >* Jan Beulich wrote: > >> Sorry for having forgotten to do so before submitting the first > >> time (I know I had intended to). > > > >This happens. I'm still unsure whether we can do it in .31.0 or need > >to delay it to .31.1 via a -stable backport tag. One more problem > >with it and i think we'll need to delay it - it's just too large and > >changes too many aspects of the linker script. > > > >Would it be possible to split it into two pieces: 'minimal fix' and > >'clean up' portions? > > Besides being cumbersome, that would make it even larger, so I'd > say that's not worth it. I mean the two patches yield the same end result. The first one (which is smaller, hopefully) gets committed to x86/urgent, the second one (the cleanups and other non-essentials) gets pushed upstream in .32. Ingo