On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 06:19:49PM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:

On 02/27/14 17:47, Russ Dill wrote:

quoted

On 02/27/2014 04:09 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:

quoted

On 02/27/14 15:57, Sebastian Capella wrote:

quoted

diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/memory.h

b/arch/arm/include/asm/memory.h index 8756e4b..1079ea8 100644 ---
a/arch/arm/include/asm/memory.h +++
b/arch/arm/include/asm/memory.h @@ -291,6 +291,7 @@ static inline
void *phys_to_virt(phys_addr_t x) */ #define __pa(x)
__virt_to_phys((unsigned long)(x)) #define __va(x)			((void
*)__phys_to_virt((phys_addr_t)(x))) +#define __pa_symbol(x)
__pa(RELOC_HIDE((unsigned long)(x), 0))

Just curious, is there a reason for the RELOC_HIDE() here? Or 
__pa_symbol() for that matter? It looks like only x86 uses this on
the __nosave_{begin,end} symbol. Maybe it's copy-pasta?

From my understanding this needs to stick around so long as gcc 3.x is
supported (did it get dropped yet?) on ARM Linux since it doesn't
support -fno-strict-overflow.

I don't think it's been dropped yet but I wonder if anyone has tried
recent kernels with such a compiler?

Would the usage of &__pv_table_begin in arch/arm/mm/mmu.c also need the
same treatment?

We've never had to play these kinds of games on ARM irrespective of
compiler version.

-- 
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: now at 9.7Mbps down 460kbps up... slowly
improving, and getting towards what was expected from it.