Re: [PATCH] Fix vmi time header bug

2007-03-13 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007, Andrew Morton wrote: > > (The ARM thing is a pain, because the compiler cannot check that the > definition and declaration match. However something like sparse could do > so). Well, I guess sparse could do it, but the fact is, this is just a gcc bug. It would be much bett

Re: [PATCH] Fix vmi time header bug

2007-03-13 Thread Jeremy Fitzhardinge
Andrew Morton wrote: > Correctly matching the section annotation on declarations and definitions > is needed by at least ARM. We should ensure that we do this on all future > patches and we should also apply this patch if only for this reason. > > (The ARM thing is a pain, because the compiler can

Re: [PATCH] Fix vmi time header bug

2007-03-13 Thread Andrew Morton
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 13:45:06 +0100 Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tuesday 13 March 2007 07:46, Zachary Amsden wrote: > > Andrew Morton wrote: > > > Really truly? I think we have a _lot_ of declarations which omit the > > > section qualifier altogether. How come they don't all break

Re: [PATCH] Fix vmi time header bug

2007-03-13 Thread Andi Kleen
On Tuesday 13 March 2007 07:46, Zachary Amsden wrote: > Andrew Morton wrote: > > Really truly? I think we have a _lot_ of declarations which omit the > > section qualifier altogether. How come they don't all break too? > > User build was smoking this: > > make O=build -j16 > > This and non-repea

Re: [PATCH] Fix vmi time header bug

2007-03-12 Thread Zachary Amsden
Andrew Morton wrote: Really truly? I think we have a _lot_ of declarations which omit the section qualifier altogether. How come they don't all break too? User build was smoking this: make O=build -j16 This and non-repeatable results make me suspect some kind of build dependency proble

Re: [PATCH] Fix vmi time header bug

2007-03-12 Thread Zachary Amsden
Andrew Morton wrote: Really truly? I think we have a _lot_ of declarations which omit the section qualifier altogether. How come they don't all break too? According to the report I have. Perhaps a bogus section qualifier does more damage than an omitted one. I'll get gcc / linker vers

Re: [PATCH] Fix vmi time header bug

2007-03-12 Thread Andrew Morton
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 14:58:08 -0800 Zachary Amsden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Some gcc put this function in .init.text because the header didn't > match. For 2.6.21-rc. > > Zach > > > [vmi-devinit-header-fix.patch text/plain (606B)] > > > Index: linux-2.6.21/include/asm-i386/vmi_time.h >

[PATCH] Fix vmi time header bug

2007-03-12 Thread Zachary Amsden
Some gcc put this function in .init.text because the header didn't match. For 2.6.21-rc. Zach Index: linux-2.6.21/include/asm-i386/vmi_time.h === --- linux-2.6.21.orig/include/asm-i386/vmi_time.h 2007-03-06 18:56:03.00