Richard Weinberger wrote:
> And, of course, this makes your patch valid.
> Can you also please ensure that your new defconfigs are minimal?
Yeah, it's close to a minimal configuration for the 3.10 kernel
(latest at the time of patch submission). I was aiming to minimize the
diff between the curren
CH=um make
and successfully build User-Mode Linux on an x86_64 box in default
configuration.
Cc: Richard Weinberger
Cc: Jeff Dike
Signed-off-by: Ramkumar Ramachandra
---
arch/um/Kconfig.common | 5 -
arch/um/Makefile | 11 +
arch/um/configs/i386_defconfig | 7
with an x86_64 userland, as well as the i386 kernel
with an i386 userland.
The second patch is just a related "while we're there".
Thanks.
Ramkumar Ramachandra (2):
arch/um: make it work with defconfig and x86_64
um/vdso: add .gitignore for a couple of targets
ar
Cc: Richard Weinberger
Signed-off-by: Ramkumar Ramachandra
---
arch/x86/um/vdso/.gitignore | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 arch/x86/um/vdso/.gitignore
diff --git a/arch/x86/um/vdso/.gitignore b/arch/x86/um/vdso/.gitignore
new file mode 100644
index 000..9cac6d0
Richard Weinberger wrote:
>> Sorry for chiming in, but... what about cross compiling?
>> SUBARCH=x86 should give you a 32-bit ia32 kernel, right?
>
> Correct.
> Users expect from SUBARCH=x86 a i386 32bit UML kernel.
This is an insane expectation. This is kernel convention (it has
nothing to do wit
Richard Weinberger wrote:
> This patch is based on: https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/7/4/396
This is the original patch I sent across in July.
> diff --git a/arch/um/Makefile b/arch/um/Makefile
> index 133f7de..5bc7892 100644
> --- a/arch/um/Makefile
> +++ b/arch/um/Makefile
> @@ -8,6 +8,8 @@
>
> ARCH
Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
> Richard Weinberger wrote:
>> I told you already that "make defconfig ARCH=um SUBARCH=x86" will spuriously
>> create a x86_64 config on x86_64.
>> This breaks existing setups.
>
> I'll fix this and resubmit soon.
Wait a mi
Richard Weinberger wrote:
>> $ file linux
>> linux: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV),
>> dynamically linked (uses shared libs), for GNU/Linux 2.6.32, not
>> stripped
>> $ ./linux ubd0=busybox-rootfs
>> [...]
>> Kernel panic - not syncing: No init found. Try passing init= o
Richard Weinberger wrote:
>> Auto-detection of SUBARCH, which can be done with a simple call to
>> uname -m (the 90% case). The second patch I submitted prevented
>> spawning xterms unnecessarily, which we discussed was a good move.
>
> Covering only 90% of all cases is not enough.
> We must not br
Richard Weinberger wrote:
> I told you already that "make defconfig ARCH=um SUBARCH=x86" will spuriously
> create a x86_64 config on x86_64.
> This breaks existing setups.
I'll fix this and resubmit soon.
Thanks.
--
Octo
Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Sorry for chiming in, but... what about cross compiling?
> SUBARCH=x86 should give you a 32-bit ia32 kernel, right?
User-Mode Linux only supports two host architectures (called $SUBARCH)
at the moment: i386 and x86_64. If you leave out the $SUBARCH on
either an i386 or
Richard Weinberger wrote:
> So, what exactly is broken in upstream?
> make defconfig works as it always did.
Auto-detection of SUBARCH, which can be done with a simple call to
uname -m (the 90% case). The second patch I submitted prevented
spawning xterms unnecessarily, which we discussed was a go
Richard Weinberger wrote:
> This patch is based on: https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/7/4/396
>
> Cc: Ramkumar Ramachandra
> Signed-off-by: Richard Weinberger
> ---
> arch/um/configs/i386_defconfig | 954
> +++
> arch/um/config
13 matches
Mail list logo
