Re: [PATCH] markers: modpost

* David Smith ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > > Hrm, what would happen if a gcc optimization eventually decides to mix > > the memory layout of the strings ? Is there something that specifies > > that they won't ? > > Here's another patch that Roland wrote and I tested

Re: [PATCH] markers: modpost

* David Smith ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: Hrm, what would happen if a gcc optimization eventually decides to mix the memory layout of the strings ? Is there something that specifies that they won't ? Here's another patch that Roland wrote and I tested that

Re: [PATCH] markers: modpost

Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > Hrm, what would happen if a gcc optimization eventually decides to mix > the memory layout of the strings ? Is there something that specifies > that they won't ? Here's another patch that Roland wrote and I tested that attempts to solve the potential problem of string

Re: [PATCH] markers: modpost

Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: Hrm, what would happen if a gcc optimization eventually decides to mix the memory layout of the strings ? Is there something that specifies that they won't ? Here's another patch that Roland wrote and I tested that attempts to solve the potential problem of string

Re: [PATCH] markers: modpost

Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > * David Smith ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: >> Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: >>> * Roland McGrath ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > If we want to do it safely, I think we should iterate from > __start___markers to __stop___markers symbols of vmlinux and get the > pointers

Re: [PATCH] markers: modpost

* David Smith ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > > * Roland McGrath ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > >>> If we want to do it safely, I think we should iterate from > >>> __start___markers to __stop___markers symbols of vmlinux and get the > >>> pointers to the name/format string

Re: [PATCH] markers: modpost

Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > * Roland McGrath ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: >>> If we want to do it safely, I think we should iterate from >>> __start___markers to __stop___markers symbols of vmlinux and get the >>> pointers to the name/format string pairs. >>> >>> The same can then be done with

Re: [PATCH] markers: modpost

Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: * David Smith ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: * Roland McGrath ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: If we want to do it safely, I think we should iterate from __start___markers to __stop___markers symbols of vmlinux and get the pointers to the name/format

Re: [PATCH] markers: modpost

Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: * Roland McGrath ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: If we want to do it safely, I think we should iterate from __start___markers to __stop___markers symbols of vmlinux and get the pointers to the name/format string pairs. The same can then be done with modules using the

Re: [PATCH] markers: modpost

* David Smith ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: * Roland McGrath ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: If we want to do it safely, I think we should iterate from __start___markers to __stop___markers symbols of vmlinux and get the pointers to the name/format string pairs. The

Re: [PATCH] markers: modpost

* Roland McGrath ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > If we want to do it safely, I think we should iterate from > > __start___markers to __stop___markers symbols of vmlinux and get the > > pointers to the name/format string pairs. > > > > The same can then be done with modules using the __markers

Re: [PATCH] markers: modpost

> If we want to do it safely, I think we should iterate from > __start___markers to __stop___markers symbols of vmlinux and get the > pointers to the name/format string pairs. > > The same can then be done with modules using the __markers section. > > Or maybe is there some reason not to do that

Re: [PATCH] markers: modpost

If we want to do it safely, I think we should iterate from __start___markers to __stop___markers symbols of vmlinux and get the pointers to the name/format string pairs. The same can then be done with modules using the __markers section. Or maybe is there some reason not to do that ?

Re: [PATCH] markers: modpost

* Roland McGrath ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: If we want to do it safely, I think we should iterate from __start___markers to __stop___markers symbols of vmlinux and get the pointers to the name/format string pairs. The same can then be done with modules using the __markers section.

Re: [PATCH] markers: modpost

* Roland McGrath ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > This adds some new magic in the MODPOST phase for CONFIG_MARKERS. > Analogous to the Module.symvers file, the build will now write a > Module.markers file when CONFIG_MARKERS=y is set. This file lists > the name, defining module, and format string

[PATCH] markers: modpost

This adds some new magic in the MODPOST phase for CONFIG_MARKERS. Analogous to the Module.symvers file, the build will now write a Module.markers file when CONFIG_MARKERS=y is set. This file lists the name, defining module, and format string of each marker, separated by \t characters. This

[PATCH] markers: modpost

This adds some new magic in the MODPOST phase for CONFIG_MARKERS. Analogous to the Module.symvers file, the build will now write a Module.markers file when CONFIG_MARKERS=y is set. This file lists the name, defining module, and format string of each marker, separated by \t characters. This

Re: [PATCH] markers: modpost

* Roland McGrath ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: This adds some new magic in the MODPOST phase for CONFIG_MARKERS. Analogous to the Module.symvers file, the build will now write a Module.markers file when CONFIG_MARKERS=y is set. This file lists the name, defining module, and format string of