Re: Problems with 32bit Fedora 7

From: Paul H. Hargrove (PHHargrove_at_lbl_dot_gov)
Date: Thu Aug 30 2007 - 08:03:34 PDT

  • Next message: John Hodrien: "Re: Problems with 32bit Fedora 7"
    On Thu, 30 Aug 2007, John Hodrien wrote:
    > On Thu, 30 Aug 2007, Paul H. Hargrove wrote:
    > > I had already added code (only barely tested) to perform the relocation of 
    > > our symbols captured from, but did not fix the validation step. 
    > > Since relocations need to obey the compiled-in PHYSICAL_ALIGN restriction, it 
    > > should be easy to validate that the symbols differ from by only a 
    > > legal offset.
    > >
    > > John,
    > >  Please try building from a BLCR source tarball with the attached patch 
    > > applied (and not using kallsyms) and let me know if it works.
    > Sure.  The patch was nearly right bar a typo, as it should be
    > CONFIG_PHYSICAL_ALIGN I assume, rather than PHYSICAL_ALIGN.  I'm also guessing
    > at that being a bitwise and.  That then becomes:
    >          unsigned long unaligned = offset1 & (CONFIG_PHYSICAL_ALIGN - 1);
    > Which seems to work nicely.  Is that fix correct?
    > jh
    Yes, your version is what I had intended.  Thanks much for the proof
    reading.  By "seems to work nicely" do you mean that with this patch
    (suitable modified) you can load the module *and* have successfully run
    tests (e.g. "make check")?  If you can confirm that you pass the tests,
    I'll roll the patch into 0.6.0.
    Paul H. Hargrove                          PHHargrove_at_lbl_dot_gov
    Future Technologies Group                 
    HPC Research Department                   Tel: +1-510-495-2352
    Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory     Fax: +1-510-486-6900

  • Next message: John Hodrien: "Re: Problems with 32bit Fedora 7"