On 08.03.2022 17:36, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 04:08:53PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 08.03.2022 15:18, Roger Pau Monné wrote: >>> On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 02:57:23PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 08.03.2022 14:49, Roger Pau Monne wrote: >>>>> So it can be explicitly placed ahead of the rest of the .text content >>>>> in the linker script (and thus the resulting image). This is a >>>>> prerequisite for further work that will add a catch-all to the text >>>>> section (.text.*). >>>>> >>>>> Note that placement of the sections inside of .text is also slightly >>>>> adjusted to be more similar to the position found in the default GNU >>>>> ld linker script. >>>>> >>>>> The special handling of the object file containing the header data as >>>>> the first object file passed to the linker command line can also be >>>>> removed. >>>>> >>>>> While there also remove the special handling of efi/ on x86. There's >>>>> no need for the resulting object file to be passed in any special >>>>> order to the linker. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Roger Pau Monné <roger....@citrix.com> >>>> >>>> Looks good to me, but I have one question before feeling ready to >>>> offer R-b: >>>> >>>>> @@ -86,8 +84,13 @@ SECTIONS >>>>> *(.text.kexec) /* Page aligned in the object file. */ >>>>> kexec_reloc_end = .; >>>>> >>>>> - *(.text.cold) >>>>> - *(.text.unlikely) >>>>> + *(.text.cold .text.cold.*) >>>>> + *(.text.unlikely .text.*_unlikely .text.unlikely.*) >>>> >>>> What generates .text.*_unlikely? And if anything really does, why >>>> would .text.cold not have a similar equivalent? >>> >>> That matches what I saw in the default linker script from my version >>> of GNU ld: >>> >>> *(.text.unlikely .text.*_unlikely .text.unlikely.*) >>> >>> I really don't know what could generate .text.*_unlikely, but since >>> it's part of the default linker script I assumed it was better to just >>> add it. >> >> I've checked - gcc up to 4.5.x would generate .text.*_unlikely; from >> 4.6.x. onwards it would be .text.unlikely.*. >> >> As to the dissimilarity with .text.cold: I wonder why we have that in >> the first place. It matches our __cold attribute, just that we don't >> use that anywhere afaics. >> >> In any event: >> Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> >> albeit preferably with .text.cold.* dropped again. > > Would you mind dropping the .text.cold.* at commit? Otherwise I can > resend.
Sure; no need to resend just for this. Jan
