linux-kernel - Re: [x86 patch] Fix UML signal.h build errors

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4720B6E8.4090003@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Thu, 25 Oct 2007 21:01:52 +0530
From:	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Jeff Dike <jdike@...toit.com>
CC:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [x86 patch] Fix UML signal.h build errors

Jeff Dike wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 06:30:22PM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
>> Fix build errors seen in UML. 
> 
> Al fixed these already.
> 
> FWIW, below is a rolled-up combo patch which make 2.6.24-rc1 UML build.
> 
> It includes Al's build fixes, Wang Cong's driver fix, and a declaration
> mismatch in sched.c.
> 
> 				Jeff
> 

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.

-- 
	Warm Regards,
	Balbir Singh
	Linux Technology Center
	IBM, ISTL
-
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/