From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S1751706AbYKKTEs@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1751706AbYKKTEs (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 11 Nov 2008 14:04:48 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750924AbYKKTEk
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Tue, 11 Nov 2008 14:04:40 -0500
Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:39692 "EHLO mx2.suse.de"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1750725AbYKKTEj (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 11 Nov 2008 14:04:39 -0500
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 20:04:30 +0100
Message-ID: <s5hprl2uls1.wl%tiwai@suse.de>
From: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>
To: Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>
Cc: Isaku Yamahata <yamahata@valinux.co.jp>,
       Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix section type conflict in arch/ia64/xen/xen_pv_ops.c
In-Reply-To: <4919D33C.3030101@goop.org>
References: <s5h1vxou7gf.wl%tiwai@suse.de>
	<49133E11.8050607@goop.org>
	<20081106214848.GA3579@uranus.ravnborg.org>
	<s5hk5bazonk.wl%tiwai@suse.de>
	<20081111081552.GA10955%yamahata@valinux.co.jp>
	<s5hd4h2zndh.wl%tiwai@suse.de>
	<20081111085617.GD10955%yamahata@valinux.co.jp>
	<4919C43F.3030009@goop.org>
	<s5hej1iyx4x.wl%tiwai@suse.de>
	<4919D33C.3030101@goop.org>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.12.0 (Your Wildest Dreams) SEMI/1.14.6 (Maruoka)
 FLIM/1.14.7 (=?ISO-8859-4?Q?Sanj=F2?=) APEL/10.6 Emacs/22.3
 (x86_64-suse-linux-gnu) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

At Tue, 11 Nov 2008 10:47:24 -0800,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> 
> Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > At Tue, 11 Nov 2008 09:43:27 -0800,
> > Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> >   
> >> Isaku Yamahata wrote:
> >>     
> >>> Here is.
> >>>
> >>> __initdata and const cannot be always a happy pair and
> >>> x86 xen has the potential issue.
> >>> This patch simply removes const from data with __initdata
> >>> under arch/x86/xen/.
> >>>   
> >>>       
> >> No, I think the proper fix is to use __initconst.
> >>     
> >
> > The problem is that it depends on gcc version which section it goes.
> > Thus __initconst could break some gcc versions as well.
> >   
> 
> Why?  __initconst explicitly puts it in .init.rodata.

Hrm, right, that's what __initconst does.  Just confused.
Then I'm wondering in which case __initconst can be broken...
Sam?  Do you have any particular reports?


Takashi