[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20071022124322.GB8181@ftp.linux.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 13:43:22 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>
To: WANG Cong <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Cc: Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>, Nix <nix@...eri.org.uk>,
Jeff Dike <jdike@...toit.com>,
Paolo Giarrusso <p.giarrusso@...il.com>,
user-mode-linux-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>,
Ingo Molar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [uml-devel] User Mode Linux still doesn't build in 2.6.23-final.
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 08:25:04PM +0800, WANG Cong wrote:
> >Now apply the patch upthread, it should've fixed that one (and yes, you
> >are down to the stuff this patch is supposed to fix - and does so here).
>
> Yes, this one is fixed. Thanks for your patch.
>
> But another one comes out. ;(
Jeff had posted a fix for that one a while ago:
-int __sched wait_for_completion_interruptible(struct completion *x)
+int __sched fastcall wait_for_completion_interruptible(struct completion *x)
in kernel/sched.c
FWIW, I would simply kill the damn fastcall thing - right now the only
user is uml/i386; everything else either has it #defined to nothing or
(as i386 does) passes -mregparm=3 while having fastcall expand to
__attribute__((regparm(3))) - i.e. has all functions fastcall.
Do we really need it on uml/i386 enough to keep bothering with that mess?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists