On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 08:54:31PM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 09:54:27PM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> > On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 01:51:47PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> > > From: Chris Wedgwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 13:34:18 -0700
> > >
> > > > M
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 09:54:27PM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 01:51:47PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> > From: Chris Wedgwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 13:34:18 -0700
> >
> > > MODPOST seems to be spewing bogus warnings. It's not clear how best
> > >
Hi Sam,
On 5/11/07, Sam Ravnborg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 09:54:27PM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 01:51:47PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> > From: Chris Wedgwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 13:34:18 -0700
> >
> > > MODPOST seems
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 11:18:50PM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 12:16:59AM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 10:59:20PM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> > > file:(section+offset): message
> >
> > I like the new format - thanks!
> > Did you drop the ':' afte
On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 12:16:59AM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 10:59:20PM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> > file:(section+offset): message
>
> I like the new format - thanks!
> Did you drop the ':' after the file on purpose?
Oops, yes.
> PS. Will apply the path you submitte
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 10:59:20PM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 02:07:25PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> > From: Russell King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 21:54:27 +0100
> >
> > > I've not had one accurate one on ARM yet.
> > >
> > > Here's another example
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 02:07:25PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Russell King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 21:54:27 +0100
>
> > I've not had one accurate one on ARM yet.
> >
> > Here's another example:
> >
> > WARNING: init/built-in.o - Section mismatch: reference to .init.t
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 02:07:25PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Russell King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 21:54:27 +0100
>
> > I've not had one accurate one on ARM yet.
> >
> > Here's another example:
> >
> > WARNING: init/built-in.o - Section mismatch: reference to .init.t
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 01:34:18PM -0700, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
> MODPOST seems to be spewing bogus warnings. It's not clear how best
> to fix it so perhaps we should silence it for now?
>
There is a number of know bogus warnings being looked at.
Could you please post the ones you have in mind s
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 09:40:38PM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 01:34:18PM -0700, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
> > MODPOST seems to be spewing bogus warnings. It's not clear how best
> > to fix it so perhaps we should silence it for now?
>
> I agree. Example bogus warning:
>
>
From: Russell King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 21:54:27 +0100
> I've not had one accurate one on ARM yet.
>
> Here's another example:
>
> WARNING: init/built-in.o - Section mismatch: reference to .init.text:
> from .text between 'rest_init' (at offset 0x4c) and 'run_init_process'
From: Russell King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 21:40:38 +0100
> On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 01:34:18PM -0700, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
> > MODPOST seems to be spewing bogus warnings. It's not clear how best
> > to fix it so perhaps we should silence it for now?
>
> I agree. Example bogu
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 09:54:27PM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 01:51:47PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> > From: Chris Wedgwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 13:34:18 -0700
> >
> > > MODPOST seems to be spewing bogus warnings. It's not clear how best
> > >
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 01:51:47PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Chris Wedgwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 13:34:18 -0700
>
> > MODPOST seems to be spewing bogus warnings. It's not clear how best
> > to fix it so perhaps we should silence it for now?
>
> Most of them are l
From: Chris Wedgwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 13:34:18 -0700
> MODPOST seems to be spewing bogus warnings. It's not clear how best
> to fix it so perhaps we should silence it for now?
Most of them are legitimate, the only one that needs sorting
is the mm/slab.c case and people
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 01:34:18PM -0700, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
> MODPOST seems to be spewing bogus warnings. It's not clear how best
> to fix it so perhaps we should silence it for now?
I agree. Example bogus warning:
WARNING: arch/arm/mach-iop32x/built-in.o - Section mismatch:
reference to .
MODPOST seems to be spewing bogus warnings. It's not clear how best
to fix it so perhaps we should silence it for now?
diff --git a/scripts/mod/modpost.c b/scripts/mod/modpost.c
index 113dc77..bd6fe7b 100644
--- a/scripts/mod/modpost.c
+++ b/scripts/mod/modpost.c
@@ -872,6 +872,10 @@ static void
17 matches
Mail list logo