[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ff97cde6-44e2-e25d-7bd2-78dbf344fc7b@mellanox.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 14:36:34 -0400
From: Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...lanox.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
<linux-next@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Jun 21
On 6/21/2016 2:28 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 07:29:18PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
>> >OK, I seem to have a tilepro-linux-gcc-6.1.1 build done. Lets see if I
>> >can build me a kernel with it.
> The below, much larger than desired, patch seems to make it go again.
>
> I had to s/__atomic_fetch/__atomic32_fetch/ to avoid a namespace clash
> with the builtin C11 atomic primitives.
>
> You want me to rename them all to regain consistent naming?
Yes, it's probably the right thing to do. All the internal routines with "atomic32"
or "atomic64" I assume you mean?
So what's your build process for the cross tools, by the way? I'm assuming
you're not doing a total bootstrap cross-tool build since you'd need minimal
kernel headers (linux/errno.h or whatever) in that case. I assume you're using
the host headers to build the cross tool?
So I'm a little confused how the other kernel headers are working out for you,
e.g. <arch/icache.h> is referenced when building the tilegx libgcc.
--
Chris Metcalf, Mellanox Technologies
http://www.mellanox.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists