Has this fix been merged yet?  It seems to me that the patch Michael sent 
is a totally reasonable solution to this problem, and I had assumed that 
it was going to get picked up in the m68k tree when I saw this patch 2 
months ago...

	-Tim Abbott

On Mon, 11 Jan 2010, Michael Schmitz wrote:

quoted text
> Followup on this: You are absolutely right - the problem appears to be related 
> to the the .init_end section _only_ having the ALIGN, and nothing else (i.e. 
> no actual section content). 
> 
> Placing the align in the .m68k_fixup section like such:
> 
> --- arch/m68k/kernel/vmlinux-std.lds.org	2010-01-09 11:01:05.000000000 
> +1300
> +++ arch/m68k/kernel/vmlinux-std.lds	2010-01-12 08:43:07.000000000 +1300
> @@ -42,6 +42,7 @@
>  	__start_fixup = .;
>  	*(.m68k_fixup)
>  	__stop_fixup = .;
> +        . = ALIGN(PAGE_SIZE);
>    }
>    NOTES
>    .init_end : {
> 
> still puts .init_end, __init_end and _end on a page boundary, but also extends
> the load section up to that page boundary. (Unfortunately, it also extends the 
> kernel file size by a bit). 
> 
> Can the same be achieved in a more elegant way? The reason why the old script 
> worked with my binutils appears to be the placement of the initramfs data right 
> at the end - the start of initramfs is page aligned, and the size of the 
> initramfs is an integer number of pages, so the end of initramfs data, 
> __init_end and _end all are on a page boundary. With the fixup section now 
> placed after the initramfs explicitly, this no longer happens by accident...
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 	Michael
> 
> 
> 
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/