From: Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@hp.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>,
Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Adam Belay <abelay@mit.edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/9] resources: add arch hook for preventing allocation in reserved areas
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 15:56:06 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201012161556.07868.bjorn.helgaas@hp.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTindCiEeHDhDJhc9o-iZHvts2d1QnH2CxmDtgb6=@mail.gmail.com>
On Thursday, December 16, 2010 03:03:21 pm Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 9:38 AM, Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@hp.com> wrote:
> >
> > This adds arch_remove_reservations(), which an arch can implement if it
> > needs to protect part of the address space from allocation.
>
> Oh, I just realized - we've had gcc (or maybe "as") bugs when the weak
> symbol is in the same compilation unit as the caller, and some part of
> the toolchain just ends up short-circuiting it (either gcc inlines it,
> or maybe it was that as resolves it early). Making the "weak" part not
> work, because it binds strongly.
>
> It may be that we don't support those gcc versions any more, but I
> thought I'd bring the issue up. It's safer to put the weak functions
> in some other file if possible.
I'd be glad to repost and do that if necessary. Does anybody
know for sure if it is?
I did find these cases where we have a weak symbol definition in
the same file as the caller, as well as another version elsewhere,
so maybe those toolchains are indeed no longer supported?
arch_disable_smp_support()
defined and called in init/main.c (used for "nosmp" arg)
also defined in arch/x86/kernel/apic/io_apic.c
smp_setup_processor_id()
defined and called in init/main.c
also defined in arch/s390/kernel/smp.c
also defined in arch/sparc/kernel/smp_64.c
arch_enable_nonboot_cpus_begin()
defined and called in kernel/cpu.c
also defined in arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
arch_irq_work_raise()
defined and called in kernel/irq_work.c
also defined in arch/sparc/kernel/pcr.c
also defined in arch/x86/kernel/irq_work.c
arch_jump_label_text_poke_early()
defined and called in kernel/jump_label.c
also defined in arch/sparc/kernel/jump_label.c
also defined in arch/x86/kernel/jump_label.c
arch_deref_entry_point()
defined and called in kernel/kprobes.c
also defined in arch/ia64/kernel/kprobes.c
also defined in arch/powerpc/kernel/kprobes.c
arch_scale_smt_power()
defined and called in kernel/sched_fair.c
also defined in arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sched.c
memblock_nid_range()
defined and called in mm/memblock.c
also defined in arch/sparc/mm/init_64.c
If this toolchain bug is still a problem, I would think all of the
above would be defects, so my guess is that we don't have to worry
about it any more.
Bjorn
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-12-16 22:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-12-16 17:38 [PATCH 0/9] PCI: revert to allocating bottom-up, avoid E820 areas Bjorn Helgaas
2010-12-16 17:38 ` [PATCH 1/9] Revert "PCI: fix pci_bus_alloc_resource() hang, prefer positive decode" Bjorn Helgaas
2010-12-16 17:38 ` [PATCH 2/9] Revert "x86: allocate space within a region top-down" Bjorn Helgaas
2010-12-16 17:38 ` [PATCH 3/9] Revert "x86/PCI: allocate space from the end of a region, not the beginning" Bjorn Helgaas
2010-12-16 17:38 ` [PATCH 4/9] Revert "PCI: allocate bus resources from the top down" Bjorn Helgaas
2010-12-16 17:38 ` [PATCH 5/9] Revert "resources: support allocating space within a region " Bjorn Helgaas
2010-12-16 17:38 ` [PATCH 6/9] resources: add arch hook for preventing allocation in reserved areas Bjorn Helgaas
2010-12-16 22:03 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-12-16 22:56 ` Bjorn Helgaas [this message]
2010-12-16 23:17 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-12-16 17:38 ` [PATCH 7/9] x86: avoid low BIOS area when allocating address space Bjorn Helgaas
2010-12-16 17:38 ` [PATCH 8/9] x86: avoid E820 regions " Bjorn Helgaas
2010-12-19 9:50 ` Yinghai Lu
2010-12-19 23:33 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2010-12-16 17:39 ` [PATCH 9/9] x86: avoid high BIOS area " Bjorn Helgaas
2010-12-16 21:59 ` [PATCH 0/9] PCI: revert to allocating bottom-up, avoid E820 areas Linus Torvalds
2010-12-16 22:03 ` Jesse Barnes
2010-12-17 3:00 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-12-17 16:00 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2010-12-19 14:31 ` David John
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=201012161556.07868.bjorn.helgaas@hp.com \
--to=bjorn.helgaas@hp.com \
--cc=abelay@mit.edu \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®