On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 11:48:35PM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 11:24:21PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > > On Mon, 2011-08-01 at 00:11 +0200, richard -rw- weinberger wrote: > > > > > > Why do we need this? > > > > The arch/x86_64 and arch/i386 directories were removed from the kernel > > four years ago, and replaced by the 'x86' arch. UML is still dependent > > on the legacy SUBARCH=i386 and SUBARCH=x86_64 settings, and the patch > > sequence I just posted makes it cope with SUBARCH=x86. > > Hell, no. If you want to do it, do it the right way. See #x86_merge in > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/viro/um-header.git/
FWIW, the next step (still not pushed there) is to move arch/um/sys-x86 to arch/x86/um, with arch/um/os-Linux/sys-x86 becoming arch/x86/um/os-Linux, Kconfig.x86 moving to arch/x86/um/Kconfig and Makefile-x86 - to arch/x86/um/Makefile.defs. Next after that - arch/powerpc/um (and yes, it means resurrected uml/ppc port; for now - only ppc32, since I have no ppc64 boxen to test on). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Got Input? Slashdot Needs You. Take our quick survey online. Come on, we don't ask for help often. Plus, you'll get a chance to win $100 to spend on ThinkGeek. http://p.sf.net/sfu/slashdot-survey _______________________________________________ User-mode-linux-devel mailing list User-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-devel
