| Message ID | 20111214.131810.916491563666428853.davem@davemloft.net |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Delegated to: | David Miller |
| Headers | show |
> sparc32: Be less strict in matching %lo part of relocation. > > The "(insn & 0x01800000) != 0x01800000" test matches 'restore' > but that is a legitimate place to see the %lo() part of a 32-bit > symbol relocation, particularly in tail calls. > > Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net> Tested-by: Sergei Trofimovich <slyfox@gentoo.org> Was about to send exactly the same. Thanks!
From: Sergei Trofimovich <slyich@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 21:55:16 +0300 >> sparc32: Be less strict in matching %lo part of relocation. >> >> The "(insn & 0x01800000) != 0x01800000" test matches 'restore' >> but that is a legitimate place to see the %lo() part of a 32-bit >> symbol relocation, particularly in tail calls. >> >> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net> > > Tested-by: Sergei Trofimovich <slyfox@gentoo.org> > > Was about to send exactly the same. Thanks! Thanks for testing Sergei. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 12/14/2011 12:18 PM, David Miller wrote: > From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> > Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 12:54:43 -0500 (EST) > >> The right fix is to simply teach btfixup to be able to patch >> the 'restore' just as equally as it would patch an 'or'. > > Try this: > > -------------------- > sparc32: Be less strict in matching %lo part of relocation. Yay! With that patch, it booted to a shell prompt. Thanks, Rob -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 12/14/2011 01:13 PM, David Miller wrote: > From: Sergei Trofimovich <slyich@gmail.com> > Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 21:55:16 +0300 > >>> sparc32: Be less strict in matching %lo part of relocation. >>> >>> The "(insn & 0x01800000) != 0x01800000" test matches 'restore' >>> but that is a legitimate place to see the %lo() part of a 32-bit >>> symbol relocation, particularly in tail calls. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net> >> >> Tested-by: Sergei Trofimovich <slyfox@gentoo.org> >> >> Was about to send exactly the same. Thanks! > > Thanks for testing Sergei. > Is that the line we're using now? I'm out of touch... Tested-by: Rob Landley <rob@landley.net> Rob -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/arch/sparc/mm/btfixup.c b/arch/sparc/mm/btfixup.c index 5175ac2..8a7f817 100644 --- a/arch/sparc/mm/btfixup.c +++ b/arch/sparc/mm/btfixup.c @@ -302,8 +302,7 @@ void __init btfixup(void) case 'i': /* INT */ if ((insn & 0xc1c00000) == 0x01000000) /* %HI */ set_addr(addr, q[1], fmangled, (insn & 0xffc00000) | (p[1] >> 10)); - else if ((insn & 0x80002000) == 0x80002000 && - (insn & 0x01800000) != 0x01800000) /* %LO */ + else if ((insn & 0x80002000) == 0x80002000) /* %LO */ set_addr(addr, q[1], fmangled, (insn & 0xffffe000) | (p[1] & 0x3ff)); else { prom_printf(insn_i, p, addr, insn);