[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200904301640.32769.arnd@arndb.de>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 16:40:32 +0200
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: monstr@...str.eu
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, john.williams@...alogix.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 29/30] microblaze_mmu_v1: stat.h MMU update
On Thursday 30 April 2009, Michal Simek wrote:
> 2. header cleanup -> some of them is pain because I have to recompile toolchain
> that's should be a big deal but after recompilation kernel, user apps I am getting some problems.
Yes, I understand that you have a circular dependency there, but fixing
the ABI can only become harder with time, as more people start using
the current kernel/toolchain combination.
> 3. syscall cleanup -> we still have old libc and I can't simple remove ancient syscalls
I had hoped that the way I set __ARCH_WANT_SYSCALL_* in the microblaze
unistd.h would provide an easy way to migrate, because this still defines
almost all traditional system calls (I haven't double-checked if some more
are currently used on microblaze, but they would be easy to add).
This means that as a first step, rebuilding the tool chain (as above) should
be sufficient and not require source-level changes to libc. From that point,
you can remove the remaining __ARCH_WANT_SYSCALL_* defintions one by one,
and change the libc accordingly.
I could also try building uclibc with the generic headers if I find the
time. Which version do you use, just upstream or do you have a private
libc tree with more changes?
Arnd <><
--
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