On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 10:52:17AM +0000, Dave Martin wrote:

On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 09:33:56AM +0000, Dave Martin wrote:

quoted

Agreed -- actually, I suspected we might need to support this. ?But I
don't think solving this problem (= keeping the fixup implementation
in memory and enhancing the module loader) solved the
fixups-referencing-sections-discarded-from-vmlinux problem. ?These
seem to be two separate issues. ?I am filing to understand something?

They are separate, but related issues. ?They both ultimately have the
same cause - the placement of the spinlock code inline rather than
out of line, resulting in fixups appearing all over the place rather
than just in kernel/spinlock.o.

I guess what I want to understand is whether I (or someone) still
need(s) to sort out the vmlinux.lds issue.

Yes we do - if you build your kernel you should find that your link
fails because of discarded sections being referenced.

If we're keeping inline spinlocks (I currently assume "yes"), then the
vmlinux.lds issue still needs fixing.  Is that correct?  However, if
we get rid of inline spinlocks we won't have the problem, though there
may be some performance impact -- hard to judge how significant.

I don't see that we can get rid of inline spinlocks - it's controlled
by stuff external to the arch.