On Sunday 09 December 2007 08:58:11 Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 03, 2007 at 09:02:19PM +1100, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > On Sunday 02 December 2007 22:22:31 Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > On Sat, 1 Dec 2007, Pierre Ossman wrote:
> > > > Yeah, that could work. Have a header with stuff like
On Sunday 09 December 2007 08:58:11 Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Mon, Dec 03, 2007 at 09:02:19PM +1100, Rusty Russell wrote:
On Sunday 02 December 2007 22:22:31 Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Sat, 1 Dec 2007, Pierre Ossman wrote:
Yeah, that could work. Have a header with stuff like this:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 19:11:12 +0100
Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 09, 2007 at 06:08:18PM +0100, Pierre Ossman wrote:
> >
> > This still requires a bit of maintenance to set up a kerneltypes.h for
> > every arch.
>
> Better doing this work once than fixing similar issues
On Sun, Dec 09, 2007 at 06:08:18PM +0100, Pierre Ossman wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 12:22:31 +0100 (CET)
> Geert Uytterhoeven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > I gave it a try:
> > - Remove existing alignment attributes from some device_id types
> > - Introduce kernel_* types with proper
On Sun, Dec 09, 2007 at 06:08:18PM +0100, Pierre Ossman wrote:
On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 12:22:31 +0100 (CET)
Geert Uytterhoeven [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I gave it a try:
- Remove existing alignment attributes from some device_id types
- Introduce kernel_* types with proper size and
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 19:11:12 +0100
Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Dec 09, 2007 at 06:08:18PM +0100, Pierre Ossman wrote:
This still requires a bit of maintenance to set up a kerneltypes.h for
every arch.
Better doing this work once than fixing similar issues again and
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 22:58:11 +0100
Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 03, 2007 at 09:02:19PM +1100, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > So, just insert two bits of padding in sdio_device_id and insert a comment
> > saying "/* Explicit padding: works even if we're cross-compiling */".
>
>
On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 12:22:31 +0100 (CET)
Geert Uytterhoeven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I gave it a try:
> - Remove existing alignment attributes from some device_id types
> - Introduce kernel_* types with proper size and alignment for
> cross-compilation (sample for m68k included)
>
On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 12:22:31 +0100 (CET)
Geert Uytterhoeven [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I gave it a try:
- Remove existing alignment attributes from some device_id types
- Introduce kernel_* types with proper size and alignment for
cross-compilation (sample asm/kerneltypes.h for m68k
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 22:58:11 +0100
Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Dec 03, 2007 at 09:02:19PM +1100, Rusty Russell wrote:
So, just insert two bits of padding in sdio_device_id and insert a comment
saying /* Explicit padding: works even if we're cross-compiling */.
We had one
On Sat, 2007-12-08 at 22:58 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 03, 2007 at 09:02:19PM +1100, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > On Sunday 02 December 2007 22:22:31 Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > On Sat, 1 Dec 2007, Pierre Ossman wrote:
> > > > Yeah, that could work. Have a header with stuff like
On Mon, Dec 03, 2007 at 09:02:19PM +1100, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Sunday 02 December 2007 22:22:31 Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > On Sat, 1 Dec 2007, Pierre Ossman wrote:
> > > Yeah, that could work. Have a header with stuff like this:
> > >
> > > typedef u16 __attribute__((aligned(2)))
On Mon, Dec 03, 2007 at 09:02:19PM +1100, Rusty Russell wrote:
On Sunday 02 December 2007 22:22:31 Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Sat, 1 Dec 2007, Pierre Ossman wrote:
Yeah, that could work. Have a header with stuff like this:
typedef u16 __attribute__((aligned(2))) aligned_u16;
On Sat, 2007-12-08 at 22:58 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Mon, Dec 03, 2007 at 09:02:19PM +1100, Rusty Russell wrote:
On Sunday 02 December 2007 22:22:31 Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Sat, 1 Dec 2007, Pierre Ossman wrote:
Yeah, that could work. Have a header with stuff like this:
On Sunday 02 December 2007 22:22:31 Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Dec 2007, Pierre Ossman wrote:
> > Yeah, that could work. Have a header with stuff like this:
> >
> > typedef u16 __attribute__((aligned(2))) aligned_u16;
> > typedef u32 __attribute__((aligned(4))) aligned_u32;
>
> I gave
On Sunday 02 December 2007 22:22:31 Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Sat, 1 Dec 2007, Pierre Ossman wrote:
Yeah, that could work. Have a header with stuff like this:
typedef u16 __attribute__((aligned(2))) aligned_u16;
typedef u32 __attribute__((aligned(4))) aligned_u32;
I gave it a try:
On Sat, 1 Dec 2007, Pierre Ossman wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:34:02 +0100 (CET)
> Geert Uytterhoeven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Pierre Ossman wrote:
> > >
> > > Is there no directive we can stick in there that forces a reasonable
> > > alignment (e.g. alignment ==
On Sat, 1 Dec 2007, Pierre Ossman wrote:
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:34:02 +0100 (CET)
Geert Uytterhoeven [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Pierre Ossman wrote:
Is there no directive we can stick in there that forces a reasonable
alignment (e.g. alignment == sizeof(type))
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:34:02 +0100 (CET)
Geert Uytterhoeven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Pierre Ossman wrote:
> >
> > Is there no directive we can stick in there that forces a reasonable
> > alignment (e.g. alignment == sizeof(type)) independently of arch?
>
> We could use
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:34:02 +0100 (CET)
Geert Uytterhoeven [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Pierre Ossman wrote:
Is there no directive we can stick in there that forces a reasonable
alignment (e.g. alignment == sizeof(type)) independently of arch?
We could use something
On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 01:19:42PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:28:56 +
> Al Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 01:00:56AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > No the slightest. 12 seems like the correct, padded size. A size of 10
> > > > is
On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 01:19:42PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:28:56 +
Al Viro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 01:00:56AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
No the slightest. 12 seems like the correct, padded size. A size of 10
is just weird as
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:28:56 +
Al Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 01:00:56AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > No the slightest. 12 seems like the correct, padded size. A size of 10 is
> > > just weird as the unpadded size is 9 bytes. Could you dump the
> > >
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:28:56 +
Al Viro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 01:00:56AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
No the slightest. 12 seems like the correct, padded size. A size of 10 is
just weird as the unpadded size is 9 bytes. Could you dump the
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Pierre Ossman wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:28:56 +
> Al Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Eh... m68k has 16bit alignment for unsigned long.
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/mod_devicetable.h
> > b/include/linux/mod_devicetable.h
> > ---
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:28:56 +
Al Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Eh... m68k has 16bit alignment for unsigned long.
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/mod_devicetable.h b/include/linux/mod_devicetable.h
> --- a/include/linux/mod_devicetable.h
> +++ b/include/linux/mod_devicetable.h
> @@
Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Delightful. So what are the options here? Start packing the device table
>> structs is the obvious quick fix. Declaring cross-compilation unsupported
>> isn't really viable, and I guess determining padding differences is far from
>> easy.
>
> There are
> Delightful. So what are the options here? Start packing the device table
> structs is the obvious quick fix. Declaring cross-compilation unsupported
> isn't really viable, and I guess determining padding differences is far from
> easy.
There are some ugly options:
Cross compile a test
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 10:27:18 +0100 (CET)
Geert Uytterhoeven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> So the problem is in scripts/mod/file2alias.c, which gives a different
> sizeof(struct sdio_device_id) on the cross-compile host:
> - sizeof(struct sdio_device_id) = 12 on ia32
> - sizeof(struct
Pierre Ossman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 22:07:23 -0800
> Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>> Current Linus tree give me this, with m68k allmodconfig:
>>
>> FATAL: drivers/bluetooth/btsdio: sizeof(struct sdio_device_id)=12 is not a
>> modulo of the size of
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 01:00:56AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > No the slightest. 12 seems like the correct, padded size. A size of 10 is
> > just weird as the unpadded size is 9 bytes. Could you dump the
> > __mod_sdio_device_table section so we can determine if it is cropped or
> > just
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Pierre Ossman wrote:
> > On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 22:07:23 -0800
> > Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Current Linus tree give me this, with m68k allmodconfig:
> > >
> > > FATAL: drivers/bluetooth/btsdio: sizeof(struct
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Pierre Ossman wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 22:07:23 -0800
> Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Current Linus tree give me this, with m68k allmodconfig:
> >
> > FATAL: drivers/bluetooth/btsdio: sizeof(struct sdio_device_id)=12 is not a
> > modulo of the size of
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:48:56 +0100 Pierre Ossman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 22:07:23 -0800
> Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > Current Linus tree give me this, with m68k allmodconfig:
> >
> > FATAL: drivers/bluetooth/btsdio: sizeof(struct
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 22:07:23 -0800
Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Current Linus tree give me this, with m68k allmodconfig:
>
> FATAL: drivers/bluetooth/btsdio: sizeof(struct sdio_device_id)=12 is not a
> modulo of the size of section __mod_sdio_device_table=30.
> Fix definition
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 22:07:23 -0800
Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Current Linus tree give me this, with m68k allmodconfig:
FATAL: drivers/bluetooth/btsdio: sizeof(struct sdio_device_id)=12 is not a
modulo of the size of section __mod_sdio_device_table=30.
Fix definition of struct
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:48:56 +0100 Pierre Ossman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 22:07:23 -0800
Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Current Linus tree give me this, with m68k allmodconfig:
FATAL: drivers/bluetooth/btsdio: sizeof(struct sdio_device_id)=12 is not a
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Pierre Ossman wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 22:07:23 -0800
Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Current Linus tree give me this, with m68k allmodconfig:
FATAL: drivers/bluetooth/btsdio: sizeof(struct sdio_device_id)=12 is not a
modulo of the size of section
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Pierre Ossman wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 22:07:23 -0800
Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Current Linus tree give me this, with m68k allmodconfig:
FATAL: drivers/bluetooth/btsdio: sizeof(struct
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 01:00:56AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
No the slightest. 12 seems like the correct, padded size. A size of 10 is
just weird as the unpadded size is 9 bytes. Could you dump the
__mod_sdio_device_table section so we can determine if it is cropped or
just oddly
Pierre Ossman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 22:07:23 -0800
Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Current Linus tree give me this, with m68k allmodconfig:
FATAL: drivers/bluetooth/btsdio: sizeof(struct sdio_device_id)=12 is not a
modulo of the size of section
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 10:27:18 +0100 (CET)
Geert Uytterhoeven [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So the problem is in scripts/mod/file2alias.c, which gives a different
sizeof(struct sdio_device_id) on the cross-compile host:
- sizeof(struct sdio_device_id) = 12 on ia32
- sizeof(struct
Delightful. So what are the options here? Start packing the device table
structs is the obvious quick fix. Declaring cross-compilation unsupported
isn't really viable, and I guess determining padding differences is far from
easy.
There are some ugly options:
Cross compile a test object
Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Delightful. So what are the options here? Start packing the device table
structs is the obvious quick fix. Declaring cross-compilation unsupported
isn't really viable, and I guess determining padding differences is far from
easy.
There are some ugly
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:28:56 +
Al Viro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Eh... m68k has 16bit alignment for unsigned long.
diff --git a/include/linux/mod_devicetable.h b/include/linux/mod_devicetable.h
--- a/include/linux/mod_devicetable.h
+++ b/include/linux/mod_devicetable.h
@@ -343,7
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Pierre Ossman wrote:
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:28:56 +
Al Viro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Eh... m68k has 16bit alignment for unsigned long.
diff --git a/include/linux/mod_devicetable.h
b/include/linux/mod_devicetable.h
--- a/include/linux/mod_devicetable.h
Current Linus tree give me this, with m68k allmodconfig:
FATAL: drivers/bluetooth/btsdio: sizeof(struct sdio_device_id)=12 is not a
modulo of the size of section __mod_sdio_device_table=30.
Fix definition of struct sdio_device_id in mod_devicetable.h
which I haven't seen before. Any ideas?
Current Linus tree give me this, with m68k allmodconfig:
FATAL: drivers/bluetooth/btsdio: sizeof(struct sdio_device_id)=12 is not a
modulo of the size of section __mod_sdio_device_table=30.
Fix definition of struct sdio_device_id in mod_devicetable.h
which I haven't seen before. Any ideas?
48 matches
Mail list logo
