lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Oct]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [x86 patch] Fix UML signal.h build errors
On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 09:01:52PM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:

> Thats nice, I wonder why I missed them searching on lkml in my gmail box
> :(
>
> Is __arch_um__ the right thing to do or BITS_PER_LONG == 32? I prefer
> BITS_PER_LONG == 32 over #if defined(__i386__) || defined(__arch__um__).
> I guess its a matter of personal preference.

Huh?

a) we really shouldn't mess with compiler defines (i.e. we should not
undef __i386__ or __x86_64__)

b) I'd rather have __arch_um__ mentioned explicitly in 3 places where
we do care about difference between i386 and uml/i386 than have certain
to be forgotten rules for places like include/asm-x86

c) if you look at those places, you'll see
* drivers/char/mem.c::uncached_access(). Really per-architecture
and I wonder if it might be include/asm-* fodder...
* kernel/signal.c debugging printks. Should die or be sanitized, IMO.
* raid6 algorithms. Hell knows - immediate reason why we don't do
those on uml is the lack of kernel_fpu_begin()/kernel_fpu_end() (and
boot_cpu_has(), but that's easier to add). Do we care to implement that
stuff?

That's _all_. Nothing else has to care.

-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-10-27 05:15    [W:0.055 / U:0.236 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site