On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 04:32:48PM +0800, Youling Tang wrote: > On 11/19/2020 03:18 PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > On Thu, 19 Nov 2020 at 02:45, Youling Tang <tangyoul...@loongson.cn> wrote: > > > We currently try to emit *.init.rodata.* twice, once in INIT_DATA, and > > > once > > > in the line immediately following it. As the two section definitions are > > > identical, the latter is redundant and can be dropped. > > > > > > This patch drops the redundant *.init.rodata.* section definition. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Youling Tang <tangyoul...@loongson.cn> > > .init.rodata.* was added to INIT_DATA in > > 266ff2a8f51f02b429a987d87634697eb0d01d6a, so removing it here seems > > reasonable. However, it does conflict with the for-next/lto branch in > > the arm64 tree. > > > The possible causes of the conflict are e35123d83ee submit. > > master branch code as follows: > ... > INIT_RAM_FS > *(.init.rodata.* .init.bss) /* from the EFI stub */ > > for-next/lto branch code as follows: > ... > INIT_RAM_FS > *(.init.altinstructions .init.rodata.* .init.bss) /* from the EFI stub
That looks trivial enough for us to sort out, especially if this patch can wait until 5.11 (I think it can). Will
