Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 18 Mar 2021 11:36:40 -0500 | From | Josh Poimboeuf <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 5/9] objtool: Rework rebuild_reloc logic |
| |
On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 01:57:03PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 07:49:17PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 09:12:15AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 10:34:17PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > > > On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 06:16:18PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > --- a/tools/objtool/elf.c > > > > > +++ b/tools/objtool/elf.c > > > > > @@ -479,6 +479,8 @@ void elf_add_reloc(struct elf *elf, stru > > > > > > > > > > list_add_tail(&reloc->list, &sec->reloc_list); > > > > > elf_hash_add(elf->reloc_hash, &reloc->hash, reloc_hash(reloc)); > > > > > + > > > > > + sec->rereloc = true; > > > > > } > > > > > > > > Can we just reuse sec->changed for this? Something like this on top > > > > (untested of course): > > > > > > I think my worry was that we'd dirty too much and slow down the write, > > > but I haven't done any actual performance measurements on this. > > > > Really? I thought my proposal was purely aesthetic, no functional > > change, but my brain is toasty this week due to other distractions so > > who knows. > > I was thinking you could get a section changed without touching > relocations, but while that is theoretically possible, it is exceedingly > unlikely (and objtool doesn't do that).
Hm? This is a *relocation* section, not a normal one. So by definition, it only changes when its relocations change.
-- Josh
| |