Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 14 Nov 2007 12:38:10 +0000 | From | Paulo Marques <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Kallsyms Should Prefer Non Weak Symbols |
| |
Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > * Mathieu Desnoyers (mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca) wrote: >>> [...] >>> kallsyms returns the first symbol encountered, even though it is weak, >>> when it should in fact return sys_ni_syscall. >>> Is it a concern for anyone else out there ? Would it make sense to fix >>> it ? >> I don't know if it is a concern, but if we're going to fix it, we should >> probably do it in "scripts/kallsyms" by providing a list that is already >> sorted according to "address, weakness". >> >> This way the run-time kernel keeps the current behavior, without any >> overhead. Something along the lines of the attached patch (just compile >> tested). >> >> However, this is an area where we've had problems in the past with some >> architectures giving different results between passes, and then any change >> to the symbol order might make the problem worse and make the build process >> fail with a "Inconsistent kallsyms data" error message. >> >> So, if someone wants to use this, it should go through -mm for a while, >> first. >> >> It applies on top of 2.6.24-rc2-git3. > > Please use this reply with correct CC list for further discussion.
I've been wanting to send this as a proper patch request email, but I just hadn't found the time to do it, and then our mail server just went berserk and I lost 5 days of LKML :P
I think the patch is ok as it is, but a nice message explaining what it does and why would be nice for the changelog. So, I'll post a new message with a nice description for inclusion in -mm today.
Sorry for the delay,
-- Paulo Marques - www.grupopie.com
"Very funny Scotty. Now beam up my clothes." - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |