On 5/29/20 10:50 AM, Laurent Vivier wrote: > Le 28/05/2020 à 23:42, Richard Henderson a écrit : >> On 5/28/20 3:32 AM, Laurent Vivier wrote: >>> Le 28/05/2020 à 12:08, Peter Maydell a écrit : >>>> On Tue, 19 May 2020 at 20:45, Richard Henderson >>>> <richard.hender...@linaro.org> wrote: >>>>> Makefile | 4 +- >>>>> linux-user/elfload.c | 203 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- >>>>> pc-bios/Makefile | 5 + >>>>> pc-bios/vdso-linux-x64.S | 115 +++++++++++++++++++++ >>>>> pc-bios/vdso-linux-x64.ld | 81 +++++++++++++++ >>>>> pc-bios/vdso-linux-x64.so | Bin 0 -> 7500 bytes >>>> >>>> I'm not really a fan of binaries in source control :-( >>> >>> Can't we see that as a firmware or a ROM? >>> It's only 7,4 KB and needs a cross-compilation env to be rebuilt. >>> >>> Do you have another solution? >>> >>> If you don't like this I can remove the series. Let me know. >> >> I think some more of the questions in the cover letter need answering. Does >> this patch set not break your own --static chroot tests, for example? > > I will test my branch with this series in my --static chroot and remove > the series before the PR.
Another option is to keep patch #1 in your pullreq, but removing the .so binary... > > Thanks, > Laurent >
