On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 23:09, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 05/30/2010 01:17 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
This bothers me, because it really feels like something is fundamentally
broken in UML tryingto track the upstream architecture, and this is just
a bandage.
>>>
>>> First of all, sc
From: Paolo Giarrusso
Date: Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 03:34:38PM +0200
Hi,
> > That looks better to me, although I'm still wondering why UML can't
> > stomach the register-saving tricks... it is not at all "obvious" why
> > that can't be done.
> Hi all, and sorry for the delay, I hope you still care
On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 16:18, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> From: Paolo Giarrusso
> Date: Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 03:34:38PM +0200
>
> Hi,
>
>> > That looks better to me, although I'm still wondering why UML can't
>> > stomach the register-saving tricks... it is not at all "obvious" why
>> > that can't
From: Paolo Giarrusso
Date: Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 06:01:44PM +0200
> >> First, ARCH_HWEIGHT_CFLAGS should IMHO be shared with UML. I.e., moved
> >> to arch/x86/Kconfig.cpu (which was born as Kconfig code shared with
> >> UML), or copied in UML (it's not defined, as far as I can see).
> >> Otherwis
On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 18:34, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> From: Paolo Giarrusso
> Date: Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 06:01:44PM +0200
>
>> >> First, ARCH_HWEIGHT_CFLAGS should IMHO be shared with UML. I.e., moved
>> >> to arch/x86/Kconfig.cpu (which was born as Kconfig code shared with
>> >> UML), or copie
