On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 11:14:55AM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 09:15:12PM +0000, Olof Johansson wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:46 AM, Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de> wrote: > > > With binutils 2.25 the default alignment for 32bit arm sections changed to > > > have everything 64k aligned. Armv7 binaries built with this binutils > > > version > > > run successfully on an arm64 system. > > > > > > Since effectively there is now the chance to run armv7 code on arm64 even > > > with 64k page size, it doesn't make sense to block people from enabling > > > CONFIG_COMPAT on those configurations. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de> > > > --- > > > arch/arm64/Kconfig | 1 - > > > 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig > > > index 9532f8d..3cf4f238 100644 > > > --- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig > > > @@ -409,7 +409,6 @@ source "fs/Kconfig.binfmt" > > > > > > config COMPAT > > > bool "Kernel support for 32-bit EL0" > > > - depends on !ARM64_64K_PAGES > > > select COMPAT_BINFMT_ELF > > > select HAVE_UID16 > > > select OLD_SIGSUSPEND3 > > > > This is hardly "compat". Sure, it's great to have a new binutils that > > has larger alignment, but practically not a single existing binary > > will work today if someone tries to do this. > > > > So, it seems very premature to take this off. At the very least > > document it like Will requested, and make it depend on !ARM_64K_PAGES > > || EXPERT. > > That would work for me. We need to be clear that most existing 32-bit > binaries will fail.
I'd still like to run some regression tests to make sure we don't back ourselves into corners with things like SHMLBA, which would now be less than a page size. Will -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/