From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx1-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.11] helo=sc8-sf-mx1.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1Bpa85-0007Va-9E for user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 27 Jul 2004 15:09:01 -0700 Received: from goliath.nmsrv.com ([69.28.204.18] helo=mail.praize.com) by sc8-sf-mx1.sourceforge.net with smtp (Exim 4.34) id 1Bpa84-0002SL-V5 for user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 27 Jul 2004 15:09:01 -0700 Message-ID: <20040727220852.11227.qmail@praize.com> From: "gboutwel" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [uml-devel] uml-2.6.8-rc2 (2.6.8-rc2 w/ uml-patch-2.6.7-01) Content-Type: Text/Plain; Sender: user-mode-linux-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: user-mode-linux-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: The user-mode Linux development list List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: 27 Jul 2004 22:08:52 -0000 To: user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > > Probably something simple, but I wanted to discuss with folks > > more in the now on if the above (stdio_console) fix was the right > > one, and to find out if anyone else has an idea of how to fixe > > the find_next_zero_bit error. > Yes, I saw that error in -mm and I agree that renaming is right; about the > other one, the reported fix (below) is correct; also, it would be nice to > delete include/asm-um/bitops.h (which includes the i386 version of the > include; since those funcs were moved to out-of-line ones, the trick must be > done that way). When I delete include/asm-um/bitops.h I can nolonger compile (main.o complains aobut implicit definition of find_next_bit & find_next_zero_bit). What am I supposed to replace include/asm-um/bitops.h with? Am I somehow supposed to symlink it to an SUBARCH? > Note however that we must not hardcode that we steel things from i386 arch, > but we must use $(SUBARCH) - or it will break for any other archs (the only > working one, at the moment, is the x86_64 one). I've tweaked my 2.6.8-rc2-1um to use $(SUBARCH), as well.. If I can figure out how to handle bitops.h similarly, I'll post an patch of my changes vs an vanilla 2.6.8-rc2 tree. George ---------------------------------------- Single? Find Christian Singles like you! http://www.praize.com/singles/ ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools! Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click _______________________________________________ User-mode-linux-devel mailing list User-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-devel