From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 14:34:48 +0100 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: Daniel Kurtz Cc: Matthias Kaehlcke , Guenter Roeck , adurbin@chromium.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Fix __earlycon_table stride... again Message-ID: <20180323133448.GA3434@kroah.com> References: <20180320175712.201572-1-djkurtz@chromium.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180320175712.201572-1-djkurtz@chromium.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 11:57:10AM -0600, Daniel Kurtz wrote: > The __earlycon_table lives in a special "__earlycon_table" section. The > contents of this table are added using some macros that deposit individual > struct earlycon_id entries into this section. The linker then defines a symbol > __earlycon_table that is supposed to contain the addresss of the first of these > entries. The code in earlycon.c and fdt.c then tries to access the memory > pointed to by __earlycon_table as an array of struct earlycon_id entries. > > Unfortunately, the compiler doesn't always place the entries such that they > are an array. Let's fix that. > > Patch 1 of the series is a fix that should hopefully fix a kbuild error that > seems to be triggered by Patch 2. Doesn't seem like that worked :( And I have a bunch of different versions of this patch in my to-review queue, and I can't figure out which is the "latest" one. Can you resend it, after getting the build error fixed, so I know which to attempt to apply? thanks, greg k-h