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 1Bp70G-0003GH-OB for user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 08:03:00 -0700 Received: from smtp005.mail.ukl.yahoo.com ([217.12.11.36]) by sc8-sf-mx1.sourceforge.net with smtp (Exim 4.34) id 1Bp70G-0004q8-4l for user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 08:03:00 -0700 From: BlaisorBlade Subject: Re: [uml-devel] uml-2.6.8-rc2 (2.6.8-rc2 w/ uml-patch-2.6.7-01) References: <20040723214312.14567.qmail@praize.com> <1090640326.4233.4.camel@dhollis-lnx.kpmg.com> In-Reply-To: <1090640326.4233.4.camel@dhollis-lnx.kpmg.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200407261705.23006.blaisorblade_spam@yahoo.it> 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: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 17:05:22 +0200 To: David T Hollis , gboutwel Cc: user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Alle 05:38, sabato 24 luglio 2004, David T Hollis ha scritto: > On Fri, 2004-07-23 at 21:43 +0000, gboutwel wrote: > > > > 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). 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 ran into this around a week or so ago as well. Unfortunately, I don't > have a patch but here is the rough idea of what I did to work around it. > find_next_zero_bit is defined in arch/i386/lib/bitops.c. If you look in > arch/um/sys-i386, a couple files get symlinked from other parts of the > tree (see the Makefile). If you add bitops.c to this, you will get past > the find_next_zero_bit problem. You would add bitops.o to the obj-y, > bitops.c to SYMLINKS, bitops.c-dir := arch/i386/lib. I think thats > about it. -- Paolo Giarrusso, aka Blaisorblade Linux registered user n. 292729 ------------------------------------------------------- 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