Re: "m68k: Cleanup linker scripts using new linker script macros."and old binutils (was: Re: [PATCH] m68k: Atari EtherNAT - Nicolas Pitre hasa new email address)

From: Tim Abbott
Date: Sun Mar 07 2010 - 13:38:30 EST

Has this fix been merged yet? It seems to me that the patch Michael sent
is a totally reasonable solution to this problem, and I had assumed that
it was going to get picked up in the m68k tree when I saw this patch 2
months ago...

-Tim Abbott

On Mon, 11 Jan 2010, Michael Schmitz wrote:

> Followup on this: You are absolutely right - the problem appears to be related
> to the the .init_end section _only_ having the ALIGN, and nothing else (i.e.
> no actual section content).
> Placing the align in the .m68k_fixup section like such:
> --- arch/m68k/kernel/ 2010-01-09 11:01:05.000000000
> +1300
> +++ arch/m68k/kernel/ 2010-01-12 08:43:07.000000000 +1300
> @@ -42,6 +42,7 @@
> __start_fixup = .;
> *(.m68k_fixup)
> __stop_fixup = .;
> }
> .init_end : {
> still puts .init_end, __init_end and _end on a page boundary, but also extends
> the load section up to that page boundary. (Unfortunately, it also extends the
> kernel file size by a bit).
> Can the same be achieved in a more elegant way? The reason why the old script
> worked with my binutils appears to be the placement of the initramfs data right
> at the end - the start of initramfs is page aligned, and the size of the
> initramfs is an integer number of pages, so the end of initramfs data,
> __init_end and _end all are on a page boundary. With the fixup section now
> placed after the initramfs explicitly, this no longer happens by accident...
> Cheers,
> Michael
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at