[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20071027031309.GI8181@ftp.linux.org.uk>
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 04:13:09 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>
To: Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Jeff Dike <jdike@...toit.com>,
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
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@...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