Subject: Re: [PATCH] kexec jump: fix code size checking
From: Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <m1d4kdk2fw.fsf@frodo.ebiederm.org>
References: <1218589475.24951.59.camel@caritas-dev.intel.com>
	<20080813024701.GA19201@verge.net.au>
	<1218596715.24951.69.camel@caritas-dev.intel.com>
	<m1d4kdk2fw.fsf@frodo.ebiederm.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 13:18:12 +0800
Message-Id: <1218604692.24951.92.camel@caritas-dev.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: kexec-bounces@lists.infradead.org
Errors-To: kexec-bounces+dwmw2=infradead.org@lists.infradead.org
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Cc: nigel@nigel.suspend2.net, Kexec Mailing List <kexec@lists.infradead.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>, Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au>, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>, mingo@elte.hu, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>

On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 20:40 -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
[...]
> 4) Put the code is a special section .text.kexec? and have the linker
>    always do the size comparison and the computation of the section size.
> 
> The fewer conditionals we have the less likely something is to break.

Yes. This one is good. But I think current one is acceptable too.

Best Regards,
Huang Ying


_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec