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 1:32 PM, Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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..

it seems there is some merging problem.. please check

index 192f6d8..30973db 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/vmlinux_64.lds.S
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/vmlinux_64.lds.S
@@ -172,11 +172,11 @@ SECTIONS
   .x86_cpu_dev.init : AT(ADDR(.x86_cpu_dev.init) - LOAD_OFFSET) {
        *(.x86_cpu_dev.init)
   }
+  __x86_cpu_dev_end = .;

   DYN_ARRAY_INIT(8)

   SECURITY_INIT
-  __x86_cpu_dev_end = .;

   . = ALIGN(8);
   .parainstructions : AT(ADDR(.parainstructions) - LOAD_OFFSET) {

YH