From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Wilcox Subject: Re: [microblaze-uclinux] Re: microblaze syscall list Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 04:06:14 -0600 Message-ID: <20080425100614.GB14990@parisc-linux.org> References: <87a5b0800804220513t75690ceao938a288596b5ad0c@mail.gmail.com> <200804221515.28075.arnd@arndb.de> <480FA729.3000406@seznam.cz> <200804241311.09881.arnd@arndb.de> <4810D4A4.7050900@seznam.cz> <4811A623.80104@itee.uq.edu.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4811A623.80104-rVRm/Wmeqae7NGdpmJTKYQ@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-arch-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: To: John Williams Cc: microblaze-uclinux-rVRm/Wmeqae7NGdpmJTKYQ@public.gmane.org, Arnd Bergmann , Will Newton , Linux Kernel list , linux-arch-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, git-gjFFaj9aHVfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 07:36:35PM +1000, John Williams wrote: > Please remember that MicroBlaze has been around as an arch for > 4 > years, just not in the kernel.org tree. These older style syscall > interfaces are all part of the uClibc and glibc ports for MicroBlaze. So is it fair to say that you now understand this was the Wrong Way To Do Things, and if anyone asks, you'd recommend getting an arch merged into kernel.org sooner rather than later? -- Intel are signing my paycheques ... these opinions are still mine "Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such a retrograde step." From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from palinux.external.hp.com ([192.25.206.14]:38238 "EHLO mail.parisc-linux.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759462AbYDYKGQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Apr 2008 06:06:16 -0400 Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 04:06:14 -0600 From: Matthew Wilcox Subject: Re: [microblaze-uclinux] Re: microblaze syscall list Message-ID: <20080425100614.GB14990@parisc-linux.org> References: <87a5b0800804220513t75690ceao938a288596b5ad0c@mail.gmail.com> <200804221515.28075.arnd@arndb.de> <480FA729.3000406@seznam.cz> <200804241311.09881.arnd@arndb.de> <4810D4A4.7050900@seznam.cz> <4811A623.80104@itee.uq.edu.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4811A623.80104@itee.uq.edu.au> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: John Williams Cc: microblaze-uclinux@itee.uq.edu.au, Arnd Bergmann , Will Newton , Linux Kernel list , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, git@xilinx.com Message-ID: <20080425100614.j_5KXPrwEQXOZt6M85tdGWkbi-dcAAyTEaXVCMjQPsE@z> On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 07:36:35PM +1000, John Williams wrote: > Please remember that MicroBlaze has been around as an arch for > 4 > years, just not in the kernel.org tree. These older style syscall > interfaces are all part of the uClibc and glibc ports for MicroBlaze. So is it fair to say that you now understand this was the Wrong Way To Do Things, and if anyone asks, you'd recommend getting an arch merged into kernel.org sooner rather than later? -- Intel are signing my paycheques ... these opinions are still mine "Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such a retrograde step."