Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 27 Oct 2007 04:13:09 +0100 | From | Al Viro <> | Subject | Re: [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/
| |