Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754206AbXJ0DNj (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Oct 2007 23:13:39 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751782AbXJ0DNc (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Oct 2007 23:13:32 -0400 Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:49918 "EHLO ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751543AbXJ0DNc (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Oct 2007 23:13:32 -0400 Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 04:13:09 +0100 From: Al Viro To: Balbir Singh Cc: Jeff Dike , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [x86 patch] Fix UML signal.h build errors Message-ID: <20071027031309.GI8181@ftp.linux.org.uk> References: <20071025130022.8720.77346.sendpatchset@balbir-laptop> <20071025150541.GB5968@c2.user-mode-linux.org> <4720B6E8.4090003@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4720B6E8.4090003@linux.vnet.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1383 Lines: 34 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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/