On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 02:12:46PM +0800, WANG Cong wrote:
> I build UML for non-SMP x86. But I don't know about UML_NET_VDE. ;(
>
> Errors threw out by gcc (too many) are put here:
> http://wangcong.org/down/errors.txt
>
> And my .config is located here:
> http://wangcong.org/down/do
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 08:59:43AM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
>On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 02:52:02PM +0800, WANG Cong wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 07:42:33AM +0100, Nix wrote:
>> >On 22 Oct 2007, WANG Cong uttered the following:
>> >> I build UML for non-SMP x86. But I don't know about UML_NET_VD
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 03:48:23PM +0800, WANG Cong wrote:
> I just followed what Sam told me, errors are much fewer this time,
> but still exist. Error messages are:
>
> CC arch/um/kernel/syscall.o
> CC arch/um/kernel/sysrq.o
> arch/um/kernel/sysrq.c: In function ???show_stack???:
>
* WANG Cong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 12:36:00PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> >On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 03:48:23PM +0800, WANG Cong wrote:
> >> I just followed what Sam told me, errors are much fewer this time,
> >> but still exist. Error messages are:
> >>
> >> CC ar
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 08:25:04PM +0800, WANG Cong wrote:
> >Now apply the patch upthread, it should've fixed that one (and yes, you
> >are down to the stuff this patch is supposed to fix - and does so here).
>
> Yes, this one is fixed. Thanks for your patch.
>
> But another one comes out. ;(
J
* Al Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> in kernel/sched.c
>
> FWIW, I would simply kill the damn fastcall thing - right now the only
> user is uml/i386; everything else either has it #defined to nothing or
> (as i386 does) passes -mregparm=3 while having fastcall expand to
> __attribute__((reg
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007, WANG Cong wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 07:42:33AM +0100, Nix wrote:
> >On 22 Oct 2007, WANG Cong uttered the following:
> >> I build UML for non-SMP x86. But I don't know about UML_NET_VDE. ;(
> >>
> >> Errors threw out by gcc (too many) are put here:
> >>http://wangco
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007, WANG Cong wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 08:59:43AM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> >On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 02:52:02PM +0800, WANG Cong wrote:
> >> On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 07:42:33AM +0100, Nix wrote:
> >> >On 22 Oct 2007, WANG Cong uttered the following:
> >> >> I build UML f
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 12:36:00PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
>On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 03:48:23PM +0800, WANG Cong wrote:
>> I just followed what Sam told me, errors are much fewer this time,
>> but still exist. Error messages are:
>>
>> CC arch/um/kernel/syscall.o
>> CC arch/um/kernel/sy
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 02:30:41PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
>* WANG Cong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 12:36:00PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
>> >On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 03:48:23PM +0800, WANG Cong wrote:
>> >> I just followed what Sam told me, errors are much fewer this time
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 01:43:22PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> FWIW, I would simply kill the damn fastcall thing - right now the only
> user is uml/i386; everything else either has it #defined to nothing or
> (as i386 does) passes -mregparm=3 while having fastcall expand to
> __attribute__((regparm(3))
This patch updates links which broke during the transition to the new
UML website.
Karol Swietlicki
Signed-off-by: Karol Swietlicki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
diff -uprN linux-2.6.23-mm1/arch/um/Kconfig
linux-2.6.23-mm1.local/arch/um/Kconfig
--- linux-2.6.23-mm1/arch/um/Kconfig2007-10-18 22:24:
On Sun, Oct 21, 2007 at 04:43:46PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> Fallout continues; I've got a preliminary patch for it. Basically, we
> need to stop doing -U__i386__ et.al.
Thanks, Al. You need the patch below in order to get a working UML -
feel free to fold it into this.
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> we should kill it there too.
>
> the only place where we should _please_ keep those annotations are for
> functions that get called from assembly code. This makes life immensely
> easier for -pg (CONFIG_FUNCTION_TRACING) kernels.
Should we re-add them for the function pointe
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>
>>> we should kill it there too.
>>>
>>> the only place where we should _please_ keep those annotations are for
>>> functions that get called from assembly code. This makes life immensely
>>
* Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > we should kill it there too.
> >
> > the only place where we should _please_ keep those annotations are for
> > functions that get called from assembly code. This makes life immensely
> > easier for -pg (CONFIG_FUNCTION_T
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>
>>> we should kill it there too.
>>>
>>> the only place where we should _please_ keep those annotations are for
>>> functions that get called from assembly code. This makes life immensely
>>
17 matches
Mail list logo
