From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 15:51:32 +0200 From: Borislav Petkov Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, hweight: Fix UML boot crash Message-ID: <20100531135132.GA4915@aftab> References: <201005271944.09541.toralf.foerster@gmx.de> <20100530150214.GA1565@liondog.tnic> <201005301728.25976.toralf.foerster@gmx.de> <20100530170346.GC1565@liondog.tnic> <4C02B020.2040103@zytor.com> <20100530193956.GA2498@liondog.tnic> <20100531023212.GA22673@c-98-229-117-200.hsd1.ma.comcast.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100531023212.GA22673@c-98-229-117-200.hsd1.ma.comcast.net> To: Jeff Dike Cc: Borislav Petkov , "H. Peter Anvin" , Geert Uytterhoeven , Toralf =?iso-8859-1?Q?F=F6rster?= , "user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" List-ID: From: Jeff Dike 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? includes 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.