From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
To: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>
Cc: Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Joseph Lo <josephl@nvidia.com>,
linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org, Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: move body of head-common.S back to text section
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 11:00:44 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130703100044.GG24642@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130703051907.GA22702@windriver.com>
On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 01:19:07AM -0400, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> As an aside, I'm now thinking any __INIT that implicitly rely on EOF for
> closure are nasty traps waiting to happen and it might be worthwhile to
> audit and explicitly __FINIT them before someone appends to the file...
That hides a different kind of bug though - I hate __FINIT for exactly
that reason. Consider this:
.text
blah blah blah
__INIT
lots of init stuff
__FINIT
more .text stuff
Now, someone comes along and modifies this to be:
.text
blah blah blah
.data
something else
__INIT
lots of init stuff
__FINIT
more .text stuff
Now, what is the effect of that __FINIT now? You get the following .text
emitted into the .data section instead. This is basically the same problem
you've just encounted.
Maybe:
__FINIT
.text
is the safest solution - and __FINIT becomes just a no-op marker to avoid
anyone relying on its properties.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-07-03 10:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-07-02 22:53 Stephen Warren
2013-07-02 23:22 ` Stephen Boyd
2013-07-03 2:44 ` Stephen Warren
2013-07-03 5:19 ` Paul Gortmaker
2013-07-03 10:00 ` Russell King - ARM Linux [this message]
2013-07-03 15:30 ` Paul Gortmaker
2013-07-03 17:20 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-07-04 0:22 ` Paul Gortmaker
2013-07-05 15:10 ` Dave P Martin
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=20130703100044.GG24642@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk \
--to=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=josephl@nvidia.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paul.gortmaker@windriver.com \
--cc=sboyd@codeaurora.org \
--cc=swarren@nvidia.com \
--cc=swarren@wwwdotorg.org \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
/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®