Re: [PATCH 3/7] powerpc/64s: tool to flag direct branches from unrelocated interrupt vectors

2016-10-19 Thread Michael Ellerman
Nicholas Piggin writes: > Direct banches from code below __end_interrupts to code above > __end_interrupts when built with CONFIG_RELOCATABLE are disallowed > because they will break when the kernel is not located at 0. > > Sample output: > > WARNING: Unrelocated relative branches > c

Re: [PATCH 3/7] powerpc/64s: tool to flag direct branches from unrelocated interrupt vectors

2016-10-18 Thread Nicholas Piggin
On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 15:28:40 +1100 Balbir Singh wrote: > On 19/10/16 14:15, Nicholas Piggin wrote: > > Direct banches from code below __end_interrupts to code above > > __end_interrupts when built with CONFIG_RELOCATABLE are disallowed > > because they will break when the kernel is not located at

Re: [PATCH 3/7] powerpc/64s: tool to flag direct branches from unrelocated interrupt vectors

2016-10-18 Thread Balbir Singh
On 19/10/16 14:15, Nicholas Piggin wrote: > Direct banches from code below __end_interrupts to code above > __end_interrupts when built with CONFIG_RELOCATABLE are disallowed > because they will break when the kernel is not located at 0. > > Sample output: > > WARNING: Unrelocated relative

[PATCH 3/7] powerpc/64s: tool to flag direct branches from unrelocated interrupt vectors

2016-10-18 Thread Nicholas Piggin
Direct banches from code below __end_interrupts to code above __end_interrupts when built with CONFIG_RELOCATABLE are disallowed because they will break when the kernel is not located at 0. Sample output: WARNING: Unrelocated relative branches c118 bl-> 0xc0038fb8