[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180511080801.GC3258@kroah.com>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2018 10:08:01 +0200
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Martijn Coenen <maco@...roid.com>
Cc: kbuild test robot <lkp@...el.com>, kbuild-all@...org,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
Todd Kjos <tkjos@...gle.com>,
Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>,
Amit Pundir <amit.pundir@...aro.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:ANDROID DRIVERS" <devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>,
Martijn Coenen <maco@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ANDROID: binder: remove 32-bit binder interface.
On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 09:57:52AM +0200, Martijn Coenen wrote:
> On Sat, May 5, 2018 at 2:10 PM, kbuild test robot <lkp@...el.com> wrote:
> > drivers/android/binder.o: In function `binder_thread_write':
> >>> binder.c:(.text+0x6a16): undefined reference to `__get_user_bad'
>
> Looks like m68k doesn't support 64-bit get_user(). I could just have
> binder depend on !CONFIG_M68K, but there may be other architectures
> still that don't support this. Another alternative would be to
> whitelist the architectures Android supports - eg arm, arm64, x86,
> x86_64. But I'm not sure if arch-limited drivers are considered bad
> form. Does anybody have suggestions for how to deal with this?
I think using !CONFIG_M68K is a good start. We can blacklist any other
arch that doesn't support this, and that list should be small as I doubt
any new ones will be added without this support.
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists