On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 03:50:59PM +0100, Dave P Martin wrote:
On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 06:22:44PM +0530, Radha Mohan wrote:
Hi Catalin, Can you please review this?
regards, Radha Mohan
On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 4:18 PM, Radha Mohan mohun106@gmail.com wrote:
From: Corey Minyard cminyard@mvista.com
Do a proper align and put it in the right section.
Signed-off-by: Corey Minyard cminyard@mvista.com
arch/arm64/mm/proc.S | 3 ++- 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/proc.S b/arch/arm64/mm/proc.S index 76d8320..1f89adc 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/mm/proc.S +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/proc.S @@ -95,10 +95,11 @@ ENTRY(cpu_do_switch_mm) ret ENDPROC(cpu_do_switch_mm)
.section ".rodata"cpu_name: .ascii "AArch64 Processor"
.align
.align 3Since cpu_name is local, not referenced, and not next to anything noteworthy (so, unlikely to be found implicitly), I wonder why it's needed at all.
cputable.c:cpu_table just has a C string literal instead, with the same content.
Perhaps proc.S:cpu_name is used in some other way, but I can't see it. The kernel still builds if it is deleted.
I replied couple of days ago but the SMTP server was playing tricks, so still not sure whether it is delayed or dropped. Anyway, what I said was:
Oh, we still have this in proc.S. I moved it long time ago to arch/arm64/kernel/cputable.c but forgot about this. It compiles fine after removing it completely.
And I already pushed a patch to -next removing it (and it will make it to mainline shortly.
Thanks.