On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 2:20 AM, Joerg Sonnenberger <jo...@britannica.bec.de> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 01:56:36AM +0900, Masao Uebayashi wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 1:51 AM, Joerg Sonnenberger >> <jo...@britannica.bec.de> wrote: >> > On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 01:24:23AM +0900, Masao Uebayashi wrote: >> >> On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 12:12 AM, Joerg Sonnenberger >> >> <jo...@britannica.bec.de> wrote: >> >> > On Sat, Nov 01, 2014 at 11:58:55AM +0000, Masao Uebayashi wrote: >> >> >> Module Name: src >> >> >> Committed By: uebayasi >> >> >> Date: Sat Nov 1 11:58:55 UTC 2014 >> >> >> >> >> >> Modified Files: >> >> >> src/sys/arch/amd64/conf: kern.ldscript kern.ldscript.2MB >> >> >> kern.ldscript.Xen >> >> >> src/sys/arch/i386/conf: kern.ldscript kern.ldscript.4MB >> >> >> kern.ldscript.Xen >> >> >> >> >> >> Log Message: >> >> >> amd64, i386: Don't expose .data.{read_mostly,cacheline_aligned} >> >> >> sections >> >> > >> >> > Huh? There is no reason for such hacks. Please discuss such changes >> >> > first. >> >> >> >> This is how mips ldscript does. >> >> >> >> Those two sections are collected and aligned by linker. After doing >> >> that, is there still any reason to expose the sections? If you point >> >> out one, I'll revert the changes and document them in the files. >> > >> > It makes it harder to look at the kernel image and see which variables >> > are already optimised? Your change does not improve anything but saving a >> > few Bytes. That's not an improvement. >> >> Is this the only reason you can think of? > > It is good enough. You haven't given a reason at all so far.
I thought it was a joke. I made ldscript much simpler. Although I'm not convinced at all, I can revert for you. If you know everything about those ldscripts, I'd appreciate you rewrite all of them. Thanks.