Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 24 Aug 2009 08:21:23 +0100 | From | "Jan Beulich" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] x86: fix build with older binutils and consolidate linker script |
| |
>>> "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com> 24.08.09 09:13 >>> >On 08/23/2009 11:55 PM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com> 21.08.09 22:23 >>> >>> On 08/18/2009 08:51 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> >>>> #define VSYSCALL_ADDR (-10*1024*1024) >>>> -#define VSYSCALL_PHYS_ADDR ((LOADADDR(.data.read_mostly) + \ >>>> - SIZEOF(.data.read_mostly) + 4095) & ~(4095)) >>>> -#define VSYSCALL_VIRT_ADDR ((ADDR(.data.read_mostly) + \ >>>> - SIZEOF(.data.read_mostly) + 4095) & ~(4095)) >>>> +#define VSYSCALL_PHYS_ADDR ((LOADADDR(.data) + SIZEOF(.data) + \ >>>> + PAGE_SIZE - 1) & ~(PAGE_SIZE - 1)) >>>> +#define VSYSCALL_VIRT_ADDR ((ADDR(.data) + SIZEOF(.data) + \ >>>> + PAGE_SIZE - 1) & ~(PAGE_SIZE - 1)) >>>> >>> I'm missing something with this chunk... could you please explain? >> >> There are two changes here: One is the adjustment to properly use the >> new preceding section's name, and the other is to replace the hard coded >> 4095 by PAGE_SIZE-1. >> > >Hm. I'm wondering if an actual (NOLOAD)/@nobits section wouldn't be >better...
For what? The immediately preceding section?
In any case, it would seem that this would be an independent patch on top of mine...
Jan
| |