From: Jeff Dike <jd...@addtoit.com> Date: Sun, May 30, 2010 at 10:32:12PM -0400
> On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 09:39:56PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > > Which begs the question why _is_ UML sucking in x86 stuff and can anyone > > provide us with some sensible reasons? Because if there aren't any, it > > is their includes that should be fixed. Let me see what I can do to > > redirect hweight stuff properly... > > Generally, UML pulls in the host arch headers because they work. When > they are only architecture-dependent (and not, say, depending on the > host task struct or something), they're fine. > > What's the include path from UML to the x86 hweight stuff? <arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h> includes <asm/arch_hweight.h> which are the optimized variants. I have a patch which with which UML falls back to the defaults: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127525067908139&w=2 but hpa's concern is still valid: UML shouldn't choke on the optimized variants. Anyways, here's the original commit d61931d89be506372d01a90d1755f6d0a9fafe2d - you might be able to find something which interferes with UML in there. Thanks. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Operating Systems Research Center Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ User-mode-linux-devel mailing list User-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-devel
