Justin Madru wrote:Ok, I tried, I really did. But no mater what I did the diff was even bigger
Hiroshi Shimamoto wrote:
Justin Madru wrote:Sorry, didn't know. I tried objdump -d vmlinux, but the resulting file is ~50MB!
Hiroshi Shimamoto wrote:not vmlinuz, vmlinux.
Justin Madru wrote:I tried to do an objdump but it gave an error. How am I suppose to do an objdump?
Ok, finally bisected the bug, but the commit isn't related to networking!Hi,
I did: git revert 4217458dafaa57d8e26a46f5d05ab8c53cf64191
on current git and that fixed the bug.
By the way, how do I undo my git revert, so I'm back to a pristine tree?
I want to drop my changes - the revert.
Also how do I find the commit that merged/pulled in this commit?
commit 4217458dafaa57d8e26a46f5d05ab8c53cf64191
Author: Hiroshi Shimamoto <h-shimamoto@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri Dec 5 17:17:09 2008 -0800
x86: signal: change type of paramter for sys_rt_sigreturn()
Impact: cleanup on 32-bit
Peter pointed this parameter can be changed.
Signed-off-by: Hiroshi Shimamoto <h-shimamoto@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx>
thanks for reporting.
I'm not sure why this commit affects.
Can you check vmlinux? size, objdump, etc.
On my environment, the generated code looks same.
Thanks,
Hiroshi
$ objdump -x /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.29-rc2-git
objdump: /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.29-rc2-git: File format not recognized
$ readelf -a /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.29-rc2-git
readelf: Error: Unable to seek to 0xc031f2eb for section headers
readelf: Error: Not an ELF file - it has the wrong magic bytes at the start
$ ls -la /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.29-rc2-git
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2286480 2009-01-19 18:44 /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.29-rc2-git
vmlinuz is a compressed kernel, it is not ELF file.
Usually vmlinux is generated in top of source directory.
I can see disassembled image with objdump -d vmlinux.
Thanks,
Hiroshi
Is there a smaller section you're interested in, because that would be hard to send.
Or am I doing it wrong again?
that's OK. No need to send the disassembled result.
You can diff disassembled file.
I guess your GCC generates different code when the patch is reverted.
Thanks,
Hiroshi