Bug#609371: linux-image-2.6.37-trunk-sparc64: module scsi_mod: Unknown relocation: 36
- To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
- Cc: richm@oldelvet.org.uk, 609371@bugs.debian.org, ben@decadent.org.uk, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rostedt@goodmis.org, fweisbec@gmail.com, mingo@redhat.com, Jesper.Nilsson@axis.com, jeffm@suse.com
- Subject: Bug#609371: linux-image-2.6.37-trunk-sparc64: module scsi_mod: Unknown relocation: 36
- From: Richard Mortimer <richm@oldelvet.org.uk>
- Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 10:22:41 +0000
- Message-id: <[🔎] 1295259761.32152.20.camel@duncow>
- Reply-to: Richard Mortimer <richm@oldelvet.org.uk>, 609371@bugs.debian.org
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] 20110116.220755.179947617.davem@davemloft.net>
- References: <[🔎] 4D302B2F.7030108@oldelvet.org.uk> <[🔎] 4D3074FE.3030707@oldelvet.org.uk> <[🔎] 20110115.211722.39173519.davem@davemloft.net> <[🔎] 20110116.220755.179947617.davem@davemloft.net>
On Sun, 2011-01-16 at 22:07 -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
> Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2011 21:17:22 -0800 (PST)
> > I think the problem we have here is that the _ftrace_events section is
> > not aligned sufficiently. That ".align 4" mnemonic is a good indication
> > of this. It should at least "8" on sparc64.
>
I noticed another potentially 64 bit unfriendly alignment on struct
tracepoint in include/linux/tracepoint.h. I don't think that the
alignment of 32 breaks anything but it does leave a 24 byte hole. I
don't know enough about tracing to know if that is necessary.
struct tracepoint {
const char *name; /* Tracepoint name */
int state; /* State. */
void (*regfunc)(void);
void (*unregfunc)(void);
struct tracepoint_func *funcs;
} __attribute__((aligned(32))); /*
* Aligned on 32 bytes because it is
* globally visible and gcc happily
* align these on the structure size.
* Keep in sync with vmlinux.lds.h.
*/
Note I spotted this when looking at some residual sparc64 relocation
issues when _ftrace_events alignment is changed to 8. I'll follow those
issues up in a separate email when I get time later today.
Regards
Richard
Reply to: