On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 5:36 PM Arvind Sankar <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 04:50:38PM +0200, Sedat Dilek wrote: > > On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 4:47 PM Arvind Sankar <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 02:44:29PM +0200, Sedat Dilek wrote: > > > > > > > > Are those diffs correct when using "x86/boot: Correct relocation > > > > destination on old linkers"? > > > > > > > > > > It looks ok, but that patch (and even marking the other symbols .hidden) > > > should be unnecessary after this series. > > > > You mean _bss, _ebss and _end? > > > > - Sedat - > > Yes. Those .hidden markings are there to ensure that when relocations > are generated (as they are currently), they're generated as > R_386_RELATIVE (which uses B+A calculation, with A being the link-time > virtual address of the symbol, and stored in the relocation field) > rather than R_386_32 (which uses S+A calculation, and so doesn't work > without runtime processing). After this patchset there aren't any > relocations, so while the .hidden markings won't hurt, they won't be > necessary either. >
So, I am here on Debian/testing AMD64. How can I test the patchset worked correctly? - Sedat -
