Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > * David Smith ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: >> Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: >>> * Roland McGrath ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: >>>>> If we want to do it safely, I think we should iterate from >>>>> __start___markers to __stop___markers symbols of vmlinux and get the >>>>> pointers to the name/format string pairs. >>>>> >>>>> The same can then be done with modules using the __markers section. >>>>> >>>>> Or maybe is there some reason not to do that ? >>>> It's just rather a pain in the ass, a whole lot more fiddly work. >>>> cf "somewhat crude" and "foreseeable future" in my patch's log entry. >>>> Knock yourself out if you're looking for more tedious hacking to do in >>>> modpost.c, but I say fix it when it breaks. >>>> >>> Hmmmm, I have rarely seen code go into mainline without addressing valid >>> technical criticism first. Please fix. >>> >>> I'll look into it if I find the time. >>> >>> Mathieu >> Mathieu, >> >> Here's an updated patch, written by Roland (that I tested for him), that >> looks for all marker symbols in the __markers_strings section. It doesn't >> get the pointers from the __markers section because that is very difficult >> to do in modpost (having to handle the architecture-dependent relocations >> applied to those pointers). >> > > Hrm, what would happen if a gcc optimization eventually decides to mix > the memory layout of the strings ? Is there something that specifies > that they won't ?
I don't believe there is anything in gcc that specifies that the strings won't get mixed around. But, I believe this code is good for the foreseeable future. We could fix this code if the future breakage does happen. -- David Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] Red Hat http://www.redhat.com 256.217.0141 (direct) 256.837.0057 (fax) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/