lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Jan]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRE: Linux 2.6.38-rc1 doesn't boot
> 
> On Wed, 2011-01-19 at 17:09 +0800, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * H. Peter Anvin <h.peter.anvin@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On 01/19/2011 12:12 AM, Shaohua Li wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2011-01-19 at 15:49 +0800, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> > > >> On 2011.01.19 at 08:39 +0100, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> > > >>> On 2011.01.18 at 15:54 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> And as usual, report any regressions to the lists and the
> appropriate
> > > >>>> authorities.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Unfortunately 2.6.38-rc1 doesn't even boot on my machine
> (amd64).
> > > >>> This is caused by 86b1e8dd83cbb0f:
> > > >>> x86: Make relocatable kernel work with new binutils
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Reverting the commit solves the problem.
> > > >>
> > > >> I'm running the latest binutils:
> > > >> GNU ld (Linux/GNU Binutils) 2.21.51.0.5.20110104
> > > > Hmm, reproduce it here with binutils-2.21.51.0.6-20110118
> > > > but not with GNU ld (GNU Binutils for Ubuntu) 2.20.51-
> system.20100908
> > > > I got this in system.map: ffffffff03514880 D jiffies_64, which
> looks
> > > > wrong.
> > > > looks binutils changed something again.
> > > > Have no idea, CC Lu Hongjiu.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Either way... the whole jiffies vs jiffies_64 thing is kind of
> > > ridiculous. We should be able to do it in a completely
> > > architecture-generic way by either making it a union(!) (with
> "jiffies"
> > > and "jiffies_64" presumably would be #defines, or we do a global
> replace
> > > across the tree), moving the variable declaration itself to a .S
> file
> > > (which would only have data components and therefore would be
> > > arch-generic) or doing something like the attached (untested since
> it is
> > > 1 am here) patch.
> > >
> > > This should let us get rid of the hacks in *all* the architectures,
> not
> > > just x86.
> >
> > Ok - until it's resolved i'll queue up a revert - a known build
> failure is preferred
> > to a boot regression.
> it's not a build failure, without it, my i386 kernel can't boot
> actually.

Kernel build script should check known broken linkers
and refuse to use it.


H.J.
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-01-20 04:35    [W:0.096 / U:2.668 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site