On Tue, 25 Sep 2007, Andy Whitcroft wrote: > As suggested elsewhere I have had a go at tracking this down. Previous > problems of this kind were introduced as a result of using 'weak' > declarations to provide default implementations. This investigation led > me to the following commit: > commit c60473b5d32ea6cf4561232bc852bacd3a513528 > Author: Jiri Kosina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Sat Sep 15 01:49:49 2007 +0000 > i386-and-x86_64-randomize-brk > Backing this change out seems to get us past this problem. If we are to > support compilers of this age, and I believe we currently do, then we > probabally need to avoid the weak declarations and use the Kconfig > system to provide the alternatives here. > Jiri?
Hi, actually, my first patch wasn't using weak symbols, but I have been convinced that it's the way to go(tm). Please see http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/9/1/131 and the ongoing thread. I am fine with replacing the brk randomization patch with the one that wasn't using weak symbols (posted in the mentioned thread too), I have no strong opinion either way. Thanks, -- Jiri Kosina SUSE Labs - 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/
