On Thursday 15 November 2012 06:05 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 15 November 2012, Vineet Gupta wrote:
>> So the primary concern here is not breaking the userspace ABI - right ?
>>
>> For syscalls I agree that we will indeed need to fix the ABI - by fixing
>> uClibc. And if uClibc doesn't
On Thursday 15 November 2012 06:05 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Thursday 15 November 2012, Vineet Gupta wrote:
So the primary concern here is not breaking the userspace ABI - right ?
For syscalls I agree that we will indeed need to fix the ABI - by fixing
uClibc. And if uClibc doesn't merge
On Thursday 15 November 2012, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> So the primary concern here is not breaking the userspace ABI - right ?
>
> For syscalls I agree that we will indeed need to fix the ABI - by fixing
> uClibc. And if uClibc doesn't merge the fixes we can stay out of tree
> for uClibc - as we
On Thursday 15 November 2012, Vineet Gupta wrote:
So the primary concern here is not breaking the userspace ABI - right ?
For syscalls I agree that we will indeed need to fix the ABI - by fixing
uClibc. And if uClibc doesn't merge the fixes we can stay out of tree
for uClibc - as we
On Tuesday 13 November 2012 04:07 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 13 November 2012, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:
>> So, I completely agree about not adding more deprecated system call or
>> ABIs (thinking about the ptrace regset issues in another patch in the
>> same patchset), but on the other
On 14/11/12 12:23, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 13 November 2012, James Hogan wrote:
>> Hopefully with several architecture maintainers asking for this it might
>> get somewhere, but indeed we're aware of the feedback problem on that list.
>>
>> The points that I've considered for defaulting
On Tuesday 13 November 2012, James Hogan wrote:
> Hopefully with several architecture maintainers asking for this it might
> get somewhere, but indeed we're aware of the feedback problem on that list.
>
> The points that I've considered for defaulting to old syscalls:
> * doesn't change existing
On Tuesday 13 November 2012, James Hogan wrote:
Hopefully with several architecture maintainers asking for this it might
get somewhere, but indeed we're aware of the feedback problem on that list.
The points that I've considered for defaulting to old syscalls:
* doesn't change existing
On 14/11/12 12:23, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Tuesday 13 November 2012, James Hogan wrote:
Hopefully with several architecture maintainers asking for this it might
get somewhere, but indeed we're aware of the feedback problem on that list.
The points that I've considered for defaulting to old
On Tuesday 13 November 2012 04:07 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Tuesday 13 November 2012, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:
So, I completely agree about not adding more deprecated system call or
ABIs (thinking about the ptrace regset issues in another patch in the
same patchset), but on the other hand I
On 13/11/12 12:01, Jonas Bonn wrote:
> On 13 November 2012 12:41, James Hogan wrote:
>> The uClibc patches I mentioned have been posted, see here:
>>
>> http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/uclibc/2012-November/047110.html
>>
>> Please do try them out and provide any feedback.
>>
>
> Hi James,
>
On 13 November 2012 12:41, James Hogan wrote:
> The uClibc patches I mentioned have been posted, see here:
>
> http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/uclibc/2012-November/047110.html
>
> Please do try them out and provide any feedback.
>
Hi James,
Many thanks for picking this up...
This is the
On 09/11/12 09:50, James Hogan wrote:
> On 07/11/12 14:21, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Wednesday 07 November 2012, Vineet Gupta wrote:
>>> + * Being uClibc based we need some of the deprecated syscalls:
>>> + * -Not emulated by uClibc at all
>>> + * unlink, mkdir,... (needed by Busybox, LTP
On Tuesday 13 November 2012, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:
> So, I completely agree about not adding more deprecated system call or
> ABIs (thinking about the ptrace regset issues in another patch in the
> same patchset), but on the other hand I have to wonder if having a
> port in the tree that doesn't
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 07 November 2012, Vineet Gupta wrote:
>> + * Being uClibc based we need some of the deprecated syscalls:
>> + * -Not emulated by uClibc at all
>> + * unlink, mkdir,... (needed by Busybox, LTP etc)
>> + * times (needed by
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de wrote:
On Wednesday 07 November 2012, Vineet Gupta wrote:
+ * Being uClibc based we need some of the deprecated syscalls:
+ * -Not emulated by uClibc at all
+ * unlink, mkdir,... (needed by Busybox, LTP etc)
+ * times (needed
On Tuesday 13 November 2012, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:
So, I completely agree about not adding more deprecated system call or
ABIs (thinking about the ptrace regset issues in another patch in the
same patchset), but on the other hand I have to wonder if having a
port in the tree that doesn't
On 09/11/12 09:50, James Hogan wrote:
On 07/11/12 14:21, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Wednesday 07 November 2012, Vineet Gupta wrote:
+ * Being uClibc based we need some of the deprecated syscalls:
+ * -Not emulated by uClibc at all
+ * unlink, mkdir,... (needed by Busybox, LTP etc)
+ *
On 13 November 2012 12:41, James Hogan james.ho...@imgtec.com wrote:
The uClibc patches I mentioned have been posted, see here:
http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/uclibc/2012-November/047110.html
Please do try them out and provide any feedback.
Hi James,
Many thanks for picking this up...
On 13/11/12 12:01, Jonas Bonn wrote:
On 13 November 2012 12:41, James Hogan james.ho...@imgtec.com wrote:
The uClibc patches I mentioned have been posted, see here:
http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/uclibc/2012-November/047110.html
Please do try them out and provide any feedback.
Hi
On 07/11/12 14:21, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 07 November 2012, Vineet Gupta wrote:
>> + * Being uClibc based we need some of the deprecated syscalls:
>> + * -Not emulated by uClibc at all
>> + * unlink, mkdir,... (needed by Busybox, LTP etc)
>> + * times (needed by LTP pan test
On 07/11/12 14:21, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Wednesday 07 November 2012, Vineet Gupta wrote:
+ * Being uClibc based we need some of the deprecated syscalls:
+ * -Not emulated by uClibc at all
+ * unlink, mkdir,... (needed by Busybox, LTP etc)
+ * times (needed by LTP pan test harness)
On Wednesday 07 November 2012, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> + * Being uClibc based we need some of the deprecated syscalls:
> + * -Not emulated by uClibc at all
> + * unlink, mkdir,... (needed by Busybox, LTP etc)
> + * times (needed by LTP pan test harness)
> + * -Not emulated efficiently
> + *
Signed-off-by: Vineet Gupta
---
arch/arc/include/asm/ptrace.h |5 ++
arch/arc/include/asm/syscall.h | 72 +++
arch/arc/include/asm/syscalls.h | 30 ++
arch/arc/include/asm/unistd.h | 44 ++
arch/arc/kernel/entry.S | 49
Signed-off-by: Vineet Gupta vgu...@synopsys.com
---
arch/arc/include/asm/ptrace.h |5 ++
arch/arc/include/asm/syscall.h | 72 +++
arch/arc/include/asm/syscalls.h | 30 ++
arch/arc/include/asm/unistd.h | 44 ++
arch/arc/kernel/entry.S
On Wednesday 07 November 2012, Vineet Gupta wrote:
+ * Being uClibc based we need some of the deprecated syscalls:
+ * -Not emulated by uClibc at all
+ * unlink, mkdir,... (needed by Busybox, LTP etc)
+ * times (needed by LTP pan test harness)
+ * -Not emulated efficiently
+ *
26 matches
Mail list logo
