From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Andy Whitcroft <apw@shadowen.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
Glauber de Oliveira Costa <gcosta@redhat.com>,
Jan Beulich <jbeulich@novell.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
pinskia@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pop previous section in alternative.c
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 07:46:25 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.00.0804100741430.3143@woody.linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080410144114.GH10019@one.firstfloor.org>
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> So in summary valid section patterns are either
> .section / .previous or .pushsection .section .popsection
The thing is, we'd be much better off with some sanity checking in the
assembler.
Which is likely not going to happen - oh well.
In particular, the assembler should see patterns like
.size function, .-function
and it should be _trivially_ able to check that "." and "function" are in
the same section, and warn if they aren't. Because I don't see how it
could ever be valid to have sizes that cross section boundaries (it's a
totally nonsensical concept).
But it doesn't. Oh, well.
But maybe we can see it in the resulting object file somehow, and do the
check there (the same way we do the init-section analysis). I assume the
.size directive writes some debug info or similar, and we can create a big
warning when a size is unexpectedly huge and crosses section size
boundaries?
Linus
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-04-10 14:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-04-09 23:04 Steven Rostedt
2008-04-09 23:51 ` Steven Rostedt
2008-04-10 0:20 ` H. Peter Anvin
2008-04-10 8:47 ` Andi Kleen
2008-04-10 9:46 ` Andy Whitcroft
2008-04-10 14:11 ` Steven Rostedt
2008-04-10 14:41 ` Andi Kleen
2008-04-10 14:43 ` Steven Rostedt
2008-04-10 14:46 ` Linus Torvalds [this message]
2008-04-10 14:55 ` Steven Rostedt
2008-04-10 18:40 ` Sam Ravnborg
2008-04-10 15:05 ` Andi Kleen
2008-04-10 15:18 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-04-10 16:07 ` H. Peter Anvin
2008-04-10 16:20 ` Steven Rostedt
2008-04-10 17:07 ` H. Peter Anvin
2008-04-10 17:32 ` Andrew Pinski
2008-04-10 17:53 ` H. Peter Anvin
2008-04-10 17:36 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-04-10 17:52 ` H. Peter Anvin
2008-04-13 15:27 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
2008-04-10 16:10 ` H. Peter Anvin
2008-04-10 7:00 ` Ingo Molnar
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=alpine.LFD.1.00.0804100741430.3143@woody.linux-foundation.org \
--to=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=apw@shadowen.org \
--cc=gcosta@redhat.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jbeulich@novell.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=pinskia@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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
Powered by JetHome