Re: [PATCH] binfmt_flat: minimum support for theBlackfin relocations

[Bryan Wu <bryan.wu@analog.com>]

Andrew, could you please add this patch to -mm.
As we discussed here, it should be OK for us.

Thanks,
- Bryan Wu
On Fri, 2007-09-21 at 11:32 +0800, David McCullough wrote:
> 
> Jivin Robin Getz lays it down ... 
> > On Thu 20 Sep 2007 11:03, David McCullough pondered: 
> > > I would say that (a) is definately not the case.  I am sure the BF
> guys 
> > > will say they have been banging us on the head with changes for a
> long 
> > > time and getting no where as we considered the changes to severe
> or out 
> > > of line. 
> > 
> > I don't think we have been "banging heads" with you (unless that is
> your 
> > feeling?) - how about "working together, but diverting to satisfy
> different 
> > needs" :)
> 
> No head banging feelings here,  but I would understand if you guys
> felt 
> that way occasionally ;-)  I obviously forgot the happy face on that 
> statement.  It was meant as a good thing.
> 
> > I think that we have had more issues in the uClinux-dist (userspace
> and build 
> > environment), but for kernel code, we have moved from some
> non-standard 
> > (stupid) things we were doing early on to what we have today - which
> is as 
> > common/standard with other archs as we can be. 
> > 
> > Although this is slightly off topic - on the uClinux distribution
> side - most 
> > of our changes are based on requirements/desires from being able to
> support 
> > fdpic elf and flat formats, and to attempt to make things easier for
> end 
> > users/us to use/maintain. Where we do make changes - we always send
> the patch 
> > upstream and have the conversation with you (not everyone else does
> this), 
> > and some/most times rework things so they are more acceptable to
> you. We 
> > don't always come to an agreement - but we always have the
> discussion, and 
> > are willing to move if we can make things better that still meets
> both our 
> > needs/desires. 
> > 
> > > This particular patch was trivial in comparison to others I've
> seen, 
> > 
> > That is what we thought. 
> > 
> > > it fixed all the existing arches (not something that is always
> done) and 
> > > seemed a reasonable start to finally get the BF guys up and
> running. 
> > > Still, happy to make it better of course ;-) 
> > 
> > As always - we are more than happy to explore/review alternative
> patches if 
> > people want to write/sumbit them.
> 
> Cheers, 
> Davidm
> 
> -- 
> David McCullough,  david_mccullough@securecomputing.com,   Ph:+61
> 734352815 
> Secure Computing - SnapGear  http://www.uCdot.org
> http://www.cyberguard.com
>