[lkml]   [2001]   [Dec]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    Subject[RFC] Remove section .text.lock
    I plan to stop using section .text.lock for out of line code.  Using a
    special section for out of line code can generate dangling refernces to
    discarded sections, the dangling references are flagged as an error by
    binutils onwards. See the l-k discussion in thread

    After the above discussion there is general agreement (well, nobody
    disagreed) that .text.lock can be replaced with .subsection 1. It
    still gives out of line code but without the dangling reference problem
    because all references are within the same section. It can even
    generate better code, intra section branches can be smaller than inter
    section branches.

    I am going through 2.4.18-pre1 looking at all references to .text.lock
    and converting them, removing entries and dead comments at
    the same time. Most of the changes are obvious, only i386, ia64, m68k
    and arm are really using .text.lock, the rest are copy and paste lines
    in and are already redundant.

    ARM is a problem. It does not use .text.lock for spinlocks (UP only),
    instead it uses .text.lock for __do_softirq, __down_failed and friends.
    AFAICT this is completely pointless, these routines only occur once so
    they are already out of line. .text.lock should be used for the code
    that calls these functions and only on the fail path, I see no point in
    putting the functions themselves in .text.lock. Can somebody explain
    why these arm functions are in section .text.lock instead of normal

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:14    [W:0.020 / U:6.632 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site