Hi Ben
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 7:37 AM, Ben Dooks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I build all of my ARM kernels on an x86 box, it is much faster
> and I don't have to ensure I have a read/write capable filesystem
> for any of my ARM boards.
The patch has been merged into Andrew's -mm tree.
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 08:37:09PM +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 03:44:04PM +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
> > On Wednesday 20 February 2008 01:44:38 Gordon Farquharson wrote:
> > > Hi Michael
> > >
> > > On Feb 19, 2008 3:41 AM, Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 08:37:09PM +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 03:44:04PM +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
On Wednesday 20 February 2008 01:44:38 Gordon Farquharson wrote:
Hi Michael
On Feb 19, 2008 3:41 AM, Michael Buesch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[2]
Hi Ben
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 7:37 AM, Ben Dooks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I build all of my ARM kernels on an x86 box, it is much faster
and I don't have to ensure I have a read/write capable filesystem
for any of my ARM boards.
The patch has been merged into Andrew's -mm tree.
On Saturday 23 February 2008 11:14:23 Gordon Farquharson wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 10:51 PM, Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > A big fat comment is something like that:
> >
> > /* Explicit padding to support a broken sanity check in file2alias.c.
> > * The check will compare
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 10:51 PM, Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A big fat comment is something like that:
>
> /* Explicit padding to support a broken sanity check in file2alias.c.
> * The check will compare the size of the structure in the kernel
> * object file to the
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 10:51 PM, Michael Buesch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A big fat comment is something like that:
/* Explicit padding to support a broken sanity check in file2alias.c.
* The check will compare the size of the structure in the kernel
* object file to the userspace the
On Saturday 23 February 2008 11:14:23 Gordon Farquharson wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 10:51 PM, Michael Buesch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A big fat comment is something like that:
/* Explicit padding to support a broken sanity check in file2alias.c.
* The check will compare the size
On Saturday 23 February 2008, Gordon Farquharson wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 7:07 AM, Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Friday 22 February 2008 05:24:32 Gordon Farquharson wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Sam Ravnborg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 7:07 AM, Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 22 February 2008 05:24:32 Gordon Farquharson wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Sam Ravnborg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Option 1) is the worst of the three as that can cost
> > > of
On Friday 22 February 2008 05:24:32 Gordon Farquharson wrote:
> Hi Sam
>
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Sam Ravnborg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Option 1) is the worst of the three as that can cost
> > of many hours bug-hunting.
> > Option 3) may seem optimal but I do not like to
Sam Ravnborg ravnborg.org> writes:
>
> In at least 99% of the cases this is OK and the check has found
> several bugs where things would not have worked due to different
> alignmnet between kernel and userland. Just think about the
> issues in a mixed 32/64 bit world.
>
I don't see how this
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 9:24 PM, Gordon Farquharson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Sam
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Sam Ravnborg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Option 1) is the worst of the three as that can cost
> > of many hours bug-hunting.
> > Option 3) may seem optimal
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 9:24 PM, Gordon Farquharson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Sam
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Sam Ravnborg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Option 1) is the worst of the three as that can cost
of many hours bug-hunting.
Option 3) may seem optimal but I do not like
Sam Ravnborg sam at ravnborg.org writes:
In at least 99% of the cases this is OK and the check has found
several bugs where things would not have worked due to different
alignmnet between kernel and userland. Just think about the
issues in a mixed 32/64 bit world.
I don't see how this
On Friday 22 February 2008 05:24:32 Gordon Farquharson wrote:
Hi Sam
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Sam Ravnborg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Option 1) is the worst of the three as that can cost
of many hours bug-hunting.
Option 3) may seem optimal but I do not like to add more
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 7:07 AM, Michael Buesch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 22 February 2008 05:24:32 Gordon Farquharson wrote:
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Sam Ravnborg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Option 1) is the worst of the three as that can cost
of many hours
On Saturday 23 February 2008, Gordon Farquharson wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 7:07 AM, Michael Buesch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 22 February 2008 05:24:32 Gordon Farquharson wrote:
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Sam Ravnborg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Option 1) is the
Hi Sam
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Sam Ravnborg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Option 1) is the worst of the three as that can cost
> of many hours bug-hunting.
> Option 3) may seem optimal but I do not like to add more
> complexity to this part of the build. And really I do not
> know
Hi Sam
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Sam Ravnborg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Option 1) is the worst of the three as that can cost
of many hours bug-hunting.
Option 3) may seem optimal but I do not like to add more
complexity to this part of the build. And really I do not
know a
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 03:44:04PM +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
> On Wednesday 20 February 2008 01:44:38 Gordon Farquharson wrote:
> > Hi Michael
> >
> > On Feb 19, 2008 3:41 AM, Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > > [2]
> > > >
On Wednesday 20 February 2008 01:44:38 Gordon Farquharson wrote:
> Hi Michael
>
> On Feb 19, 2008 3:41 AM, Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > [2]
> > > http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=7492d4a416d68ab4bd254b36ffcc4e0138daa8ff
> > >
>
On Wednesday 20 February 2008 01:44:38 Gordon Farquharson wrote:
Hi Michael
On Feb 19, 2008 3:41 AM, Michael Buesch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[2]
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=7492d4a416d68ab4bd254b36ffcc4e0138daa8ff
That doesn't
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 03:44:04PM +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
On Wednesday 20 February 2008 01:44:38 Gordon Farquharson wrote:
Hi Michael
On Feb 19, 2008 3:41 AM, Michael Buesch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[2]
Hi Michael
On Feb 19, 2008 3:41 AM, Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [2]
> > http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=7492d4a416d68ab4bd254b36ffcc4e0138daa8ff
> >
>
> That doesn't cause me to magically sign off this sort of patches, too.
> The
On Tuesday 19 February 2008 05:59:21 Gordon Farquharson wrote:
> Does this thread [1] provide any clues as to the Right Thing (TM) to do?
>
> It should be noted that Linus and Andrew signed off on the m68k fix
> [2]. I'm CC'ing them and Al Viro on this email to solicit their input.
>
> Gordon
>
On Tuesday 19 February 2008 09:37:05 Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008, Michael Buesch wrote:
> > Still I can't see why this structure will cause alignment issues, as the
> > compiler will pad it up to the right boundary automagically, as you said
> > above. Why doesn't the ARM
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008, Michael Buesch wrote:
> Still I can't see why this structure will cause alignment issues, as the
> compiler will pad it up to the right boundary automagically, as you said
> above. Why doesn't the ARM compiler do this?
The ARM compiler handles it correctly.
But the ugly
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008, Michael Buesch wrote:
Still I can't see why this structure will cause alignment issues, as the
compiler will pad it up to the right boundary automagically, as you said
above. Why doesn't the ARM compiler do this?
The ARM compiler handles it correctly.
But the ugly hacks
On Tuesday 19 February 2008 09:37:05 Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008, Michael Buesch wrote:
Still I can't see why this structure will cause alignment issues, as the
compiler will pad it up to the right boundary automagically, as you said
above. Why doesn't the ARM compiler do
On Tuesday 19 February 2008 05:59:21 Gordon Farquharson wrote:
Does this thread [1] provide any clues as to the Right Thing (TM) to do?
It should be noted that Linus and Andrew signed off on the m68k fix
[2]. I'm CC'ing them and Al Viro on this email to solicit their input.
Gordon
[1]
Hi Michael
On Feb 19, 2008 3:41 AM, Michael Buesch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[2]
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=7492d4a416d68ab4bd254b36ffcc4e0138daa8ff
That doesn't cause me to magically sign off this sort of patches, too.
The sanity
> >
> > It is a consistencycheck between host and target
> > layout of data.
> > You need to pad the structure so it becomes 8 byte in size.
>
> Ok, I looked at the code and it is hightly questionable to me that this
> check does work in a crosscompile environment (which the ARM build
> most
On Feb 18, 2008 5:01 PM, Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Tuesday 19 February 2008 00:42:12 Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 12:17:04AM +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 19 February 2008 00:00:58 Russell King wrote:
> > > > > > Why can't we have an array
On Tuesday 19 February 2008 00:42:12 Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 12:17:04AM +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
> > On Tuesday 19 February 2008 00:00:58 Russell King wrote:
> > > > > Why can't we have an array of this structure on ARM?
> > > > >
> > > > > struct ssb_device_id {
> > > >
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 12:17:04AM +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
> On Tuesday 19 February 2008 00:00:58 Russell King wrote:
> > > > Why can't we have an array of this structure on ARM?
> > > >
> > > > struct ssb_device_id {
> > > >__u16 vendor;
> > >
> > > 2 bytes
> > >
> > > >
On Tuesday 19 February 2008 00:00:58 Russell King wrote:
> > > Why can't we have an array of this structure on ARM?
> > >
> > > struct ssb_device_id {
> > >__u16 vendor;
> >
> > 2 bytes
> >
> > >__u16 coreid;
> >
> > 2 bytes
> >
> > >__u8revision;
> >
> > 1
On Monday 18 February 2008 23:53:54 Russell King wrote:
> I get extremely pissed off everytime I have to try to explain random
> alignment issues to people. "It doesn't work like i386 so it must be
> broken" is a rediculous position to take.
I did _not_ ask for a general description of
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 10:53:54PM +, Russell King wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 11:43:12PM +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
> > On Monday 18 February 2008 23:34:10 Russell King wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 11:24:44PM +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
> > > > On Monday 18 February 2008
On Monday 18 February 2008 23:50:30 Harvey Harrison wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-02-18 at 23:43 +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
> > On Monday 18 February 2008 23:34:10 Russell King wrote:
> > >
> > > Well, don't expect this driver to work until you fix your broken
> > > assumptions about alignment
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 11:43:12PM +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
> On Monday 18 February 2008 23:34:10 Russell King wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 11:24:44PM +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
> > > On Monday 18 February 2008 23:13:24 Russell King wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 11:08:56PM
On Mon, 2008-02-18 at 23:43 +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
> On Monday 18 February 2008 23:34:10 Russell King wrote:
> >
> > Well, don't expect this driver to work until you fix your broken
> > assumptions about alignment requirements.
>
> Mr King, I'm not an idiot!
>
> Can you _please_ explain
On Monday 18 February 2008 23:34:10 Russell King wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 11:24:44PM +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
> > On Monday 18 February 2008 23:13:24 Russell King wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 11:08:56PM +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
> > > > On Monday 18 February 2008 23:03:10
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 11:24:44PM +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
> On Monday 18 February 2008 23:13:24 Russell King wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 11:08:56PM +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
> > > On Monday 18 February 2008 23:03:10 Gordon Farquharson wrote:
> > > > The b43 driver in 2.6.25-rc[12]
On Monday 18 February 2008 23:13:24 Russell King wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 11:08:56PM +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
> > On Monday 18 February 2008 23:03:10 Gordon Farquharson wrote:
> > > The b43 driver in 2.6.25-rc[12] fails to build for arm on an x86_64
> > > box using a cross-compiler:
>
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 11:08:56PM +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
> On Monday 18 February 2008 23:03:10 Gordon Farquharson wrote:
> > The b43 driver in 2.6.25-rc[12] fails to build for arm on an x86_64
> > box using a cross-compiler:
> >
> > FATAL: drivers/net/wireless/b43/b43: sizeof(struct
On Monday 18 February 2008 23:03:10 Gordon Farquharson wrote:
> The b43 driver in 2.6.25-rc[12] fails to build for arm on an x86_64
> box using a cross-compiler:
>
> FATAL: drivers/net/wireless/b43/b43: sizeof(struct ssb_device_id)=6 is
> not a modulo of the size of section
On Monday 18 February 2008 23:03:10 Gordon Farquharson wrote:
The b43 driver in 2.6.25-rc[12] fails to build for arm on an x86_64
box using a cross-compiler:
FATAL: drivers/net/wireless/b43/b43: sizeof(struct ssb_device_id)=6 is
not a modulo of the size of section __mod_ssb_device_table=64.
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 11:08:56PM +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
On Monday 18 February 2008 23:03:10 Gordon Farquharson wrote:
The b43 driver in 2.6.25-rc[12] fails to build for arm on an x86_64
box using a cross-compiler:
FATAL: drivers/net/wireless/b43/b43: sizeof(struct
On Monday 18 February 2008 23:34:10 Russell King wrote:
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 11:24:44PM +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
On Monday 18 February 2008 23:13:24 Russell King wrote:
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 11:08:56PM +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
On Monday 18 February 2008 23:03:10 Gordon
On Monday 18 February 2008 23:13:24 Russell King wrote:
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 11:08:56PM +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
On Monday 18 February 2008 23:03:10 Gordon Farquharson wrote:
The b43 driver in 2.6.25-rc[12] fails to build for arm on an x86_64
box using a cross-compiler:
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 11:24:44PM +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
On Monday 18 February 2008 23:13:24 Russell King wrote:
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 11:08:56PM +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
On Monday 18 February 2008 23:03:10 Gordon Farquharson wrote:
The b43 driver in 2.6.25-rc[12] fails to
On Monday 18 February 2008 23:53:54 Russell King wrote:
I get extremely pissed off everytime I have to try to explain random
alignment issues to people. It doesn't work like i386 so it must be
broken is a rediculous position to take.
I did _not_ ask for a general description of alignment. I
On Tuesday 19 February 2008 00:00:58 Russell King wrote:
Why can't we have an array of this structure on ARM?
struct ssb_device_id {
__u16 vendor;
2 bytes
__u16 coreid;
2 bytes
__u8revision;
1 byte
};
and therefore
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 10:53:54PM +, Russell King wrote:
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 11:43:12PM +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
On Monday 18 February 2008 23:34:10 Russell King wrote:
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 11:24:44PM +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
On Monday 18 February 2008 23:13:24
On Mon, 2008-02-18 at 23:43 +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
On Monday 18 February 2008 23:34:10 Russell King wrote:
Well, don't expect this driver to work until you fix your broken
assumptions about alignment requirements.
Mr King, I'm not an idiot!
Can you _please_ explain what makes
On Monday 18 February 2008 23:50:30 Harvey Harrison wrote:
On Mon, 2008-02-18 at 23:43 +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
On Monday 18 February 2008 23:34:10 Russell King wrote:
Well, don't expect this driver to work until you fix your broken
assumptions about alignment requirements.
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 11:43:12PM +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
On Monday 18 February 2008 23:34:10 Russell King wrote:
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 11:24:44PM +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
On Monday 18 February 2008 23:13:24 Russell King wrote:
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 11:08:56PM +0100,
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 12:17:04AM +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
On Tuesday 19 February 2008 00:00:58 Russell King wrote:
Why can't we have an array of this structure on ARM?
struct ssb_device_id {
__u16 vendor;
2 bytes
__u16 coreid;
2 bytes
On Tuesday 19 February 2008 00:42:12 Sam Ravnborg wrote:
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 12:17:04AM +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
On Tuesday 19 February 2008 00:00:58 Russell King wrote:
Why can't we have an array of this structure on ARM?
struct ssb_device_id {
__u16
On Feb 18, 2008 5:01 PM, Michael Buesch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 19 February 2008 00:42:12 Sam Ravnborg wrote:
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 12:17:04AM +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
On Tuesday 19 February 2008 00:00:58 Russell King wrote:
Why can't we have an array of this
It is a consistencycheck between host and target
layout of data.
You need to pad the structure so it becomes 8 byte in size.
Ok, I looked at the code and it is hightly questionable to me that this
check does work in a crosscompile environment (which the ARM build
most likely is).
62 matches
Mail list logo
