Re: [PATCH] x86: order functions in cpu/common.c and cpu/common_64.c

["Yinghai Lu" <yhlu.kernel@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 1:07 PM, Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
>>
>> * Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
>>
>>> > i've pushed out the broken tree into tip/tmp.master.broken (havent
>>> > updated tip/master with the breakage). I've removed the broken
>>> > printk in kernel/resource.c that Andrew found, see commit
>>> > 06e44f6af324 - so that's not the cause.
>>>
>>> i've double checked that 06e44f6af324 is applied. I'll bisect this.
>>
>> bisection came up with:
>>
>>  # good: [8bfd9710] Merge branch 'x86/xsave'
>>  # bad:  [06e44f6a] IO resources: fix/remove printk
>>  # good: [282a5f84] Merge branch 'irq/sparseirq'
>>  # bad:  [a0854a46] x86: make 32bit support show_msr like 64 bit
>>  # good: [5031088d] x86: delay early cpu initialization until cpuid is
>>  # good: [9d31d35b] x86: order functions in cpu/common.c and cpu/commo
>>  # bad:  [10a434fc] x86: remove cpu_vendor_dev
>>
>> | 10a434fcb23a57c385177a0086955fae01003f64 is first bad commit
>> | commit 10a434fcb23a57c385177a0086955fae01003f64
>> | Author: Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@gmail.com>
>> | Date:   Thu Sep 4 21:09:45 2008 +0200
>> |
>> |     x86: remove cpu_vendor_dev
>>
>> and the thing is, 10a434fc is way too big:
>>
>> | 15 files changed, 106 insertions(+), 106 deletions(-)
>>
>> and it's not obvious at first (neither at second) sight what the problem
>> is. You really need to start doing much smaller patches for such
>> critical/hard-to-debug code areas.
>>
> could be alignment again...

ffffffff80d86c20 d __cpu_dev_amd_cpu_dev
ffffffff80d86c20 A __x86_cpu_dev_start
ffffffff80d86c28 d __dyn_array_ptr_irq_2_pin_head
ffffffff80d86c28 D __dyn_array_start
ffffffff80d86c30 d __dyn_array_ptr_irq_cfgx
ffffffff80d86c38 d __dyn_array_ptr_sparse_irqs
ffffffff80d86c40 D __dyn_array_end
ffffffff80d86c40 d __initcall_selinux_init
ffffffff80d86c40 D __per_cpu_dyn_array_end
ffffffff80d86c40 D __per_cpu_dyn_array_start
ffffffff80d86c40 D __security_initcall_start
ffffffff80d86c48 R __parainstructions
ffffffff80d86c48 D __security_initcall_end
ffffffff80d86c48 A __x86_cpu_dev_end

don't know how could the linker squash others tables into cpu_dev
pointer array..

YH