[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160204134142.GA16315@kvack.org>
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2016 08:41:42 -0500
From: Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Linux-Next <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the aio tree
On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 01:19:59PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Benjamin,
>
> On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 13:03:39 +0100 Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 12:30 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
> > <linux@....linux.org.uk> wrote:
> > >> Background: new aio code is adding __get_user() calls referencing 64
> > >> bit quantities (__u64 and __s64).
> > >
> > > There's lots more architectures which do not support 64-bit get_user()
> > > _or_ __get_user(): avr32, blackfin, metag for example, and m68k which
> > > has this interesting thing "/* case 8: disabled because gcc-4.1 has a
> > > broken typeof \" in its *get_user() implementation.
> >
> > And if you enable it again, you get lots of "warning: cast to pointer from
> > integer of different size", like you mentioned.
>
> Any thoughts? I am still using the version of tha aio tree from
> next-20160111.
I am still convinced that this is an architecture issue. Given that 64 bit
values work in the *get_user implementations on other architectures, I see
no reason there should need to be a workaround for this in common code.
-ben
> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell
--
"Thought is the essence of where you are now."
Powered by blists - more mailing lists