>> looks odd. What's the point in putting a gap before __smp_alt_end? Moving >> __smp_alt_end to before the ALIGN doesn't prevent the warning. >>
> Please find attached a patch for the same. I am also copying Gerd Hoffmann, > who introduced this ALIGN. Gerd, can you please confirm that above ALIGN() > is not required and the patch attached should be fine. The data between __smp_alt_start and __smp_alt_end will be released at boot time in some cases (UP machine, kernel without CPU_HOTPLUG, ...). Releasing memory works at page granularity only, thats why I added the alignment. I think you can't simply drop it. > o There seems to be one extra ALIGN(4096) before symbol __smp_alt_end. The > only usage of __smp_alt_end is to mark the end of smp alternative > sections so that this memory can be freed. As a physical page is freed > one has to just make sure that there is no other data on the same page > where __smp_alt_end is pointing. There is already a ALIGN(4096) after > this section which should take care of the above issue. Hence it looks > like the ALIGN(4096) before __smp_alt_end is redundant and not required. Hmm, ok, it should work then. How about adding a comment to make sure the align after __smp_alt_end doesn't get dropped by accident? cheers, Gerd -- Gerd Hoffmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.suse.de/~kraxel/julika-dora.jpeg _______________________________________________ fastboot mailing list [email protected] https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/fastboot
