Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>> found a couple of bugs.
>>>
>>> firstly, 64-bit wasnt so lucky, you broke
>>> iounmap()/change_page_attr()
>>> :-)
>>>
>> Crap. Worked for me. I'll look into it.
>>
>
> well, there's an easy solution for unification patches: the resulting
> object files must have _exactly the same_ content as without the
> unification patches. (Modulo strings as WARN_ON()s referring to
> include-file names.)
>
> If they differ then the unification did something wrong. With your
> patchset and the config i sent, the difference is visible in the image
> size already:
>
> text data bss dec hex filename
> 7763766 967330 5812328 14543424 ddea40 vmlinux.after
> 7763811 967330 5812328 14543469 ddea6d vmlinux.before
>
> also, reducing the size and scope of changes helps as well - because
> that way it can be bisected down to specific changes. Mistakes
> inevitably happen, especially if you do not enforce a rigid
> byte-for-byte correctness along the way. You did 5 rather large patches,
> and it's not testable because your unification steps were too coarse.
>
But byte-for-byte identity isn't (necessarily) possible when actually
unifying. If the same function exists in different forms on 32- and
64-bit, then unifying requires I pick one of them (or perhaps a new
superset) to use in the unified form. That function may generate
different code compared to the one that it replaced...
But you're right, I can do the patches in a more piecemeal form. I'll
see if I can rework them.
J
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
