On Tue, 24 Nov, at 09:23:23AM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > Didn't we want to do the _end alignment linker script fix instead? I think we should do both. This patch is tagged for stable because it fixes a bug in the existing code. It's obvious and it's explicit and it's much easier to know when someone might want to backport it.
Changing the linker script which indirectly fixes the above bug is a much more subtle solution, with much larger potential for fallout because it affects multiple chunks of kernel code. > Alignment assumptions are easy to make when symbols are well aligned > typically (as > in this case), so we should guarantee the alignment property instead of > complicating the code. I don't agree that sprinkling PFN_ALIGN() complicates the code, it's a minimal change with a well known kernel idiom. But yes, aligning these symbols in the linker script is generally a good idea. The two patches are worthwhile, for different reasons; let's do both. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
