On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 12:18:13AM +0100, Jean-Yves Migeon wrote: > On 02/23/10 20:15, Manuel Bouyer wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 04:57:55PM +0100, Jean-Yves Migeon wrote: > >> Yep, i386-pae. IMHO, modules cannot be "safely" shared between PAE and > >> non-PAE. > > > > Yes. And I don't think making paddr_t 64bits unconditionally would > > make them magically compatible for modules. There would be other issues. > > Should there be a "machine" (uname -m) defined with the following strings? > > i386 > i386-pae > i386-xen > i386-xen-pae > amd64 > amd64-xen I'm not sure what the effect to configure and similar scripts would be. If this is for modules, I think this needs more though. I suspect some kernel build options can also cause ABI changes which can cause modules to fail, so modules should really be per kernel (at last for now, once we have a documented API useable by modules, this can be rediscussed).
i don't think we need or want to expose this to userland. i will be making it available some how in the kernel for modules, by having the $MACHINE part of the module path be something like the above list. it will also help sparc and powerpc, at least. .mrg.
