[PATCH] klibc

[PATCH] klibc

[Bob Picco]

This change enabled me to boot on OpenPower 710. Otherwise klibc's statfs is 
built for 32 bit and not for 64 bit. The failure was in kinit when
calling run_init. run_init would attempt to validate ramfs and
failed calling statfs of "/".


Signed-off-by: Bob Picco <bob.picco@hp.com>

 usr/include/sys/vfs.h |    3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

Index: linux-2.6.17-rc5-mm2/usr/include/sys/vfs.h
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.17-rc5-mm2.orig/usr/include/sys/vfs.h	2006-06-01 14:51:11.000000000 -0400
+++ linux-2.6.17-rc5-mm2/usr/include/sys/vfs.h	2006-06-01 14:52:20.000000000 -0400
@@ -13,7 +13,8 @@
 /* struct statfs64 -- there seems to be two standards -
    one for 32 and one for 64 bits, and they're incompatible... */
 
-#if !defined(__x86_64__) && !defined(__ia64__) && !defined(__sparc_v9__)
+#if !defined(__x86_64__) && !defined(__ia64__) && !defined(__sparc_v9__) && \
+	!defined(__powerpc64__)
 
 struct statfs {
 	uint32_t f_type;

Re: [PATCH] klibc

[Brian F. G. Bidulock]

On Thu, 01 Jun 2006, Bob Picco wrote:
>  
> -#if !defined(__x86_64__) && !defined(__ia64__) && !defined(__sparc_v9__)
> +#if !defined(__x86_64__) && !defined(__ia64__) && !defined(__sparc_v9__) && \
> +	!defined(__powerpc64__)

Why not just !defined(__LP64__) ?

Re: [PATCH] klibc

[H. Peter Anvin]

Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Jun 2006, Bob Picco wrote:
>>  
>> -#if !defined(__x86_64__) && !defined(__ia64__) && !defined(__sparc_v9__)
>> +#if !defined(__x86_64__) && !defined(__ia64__) && !defined(__sparc_v9__) && \
>> +	!defined(__powerpc64__)
> 
> Why not just !defined(__LP64__) ?

_BITSIZE == 64 is really the right formula... if I remember correctly, there were some 
64-bit platforms (Alpha?) which didn't conform, though.  I will look at this later today.

	-hpa

Re: [PATCH] klibc

[maximilian attems]

On Thu, 01 June 2006, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:
> > On Thu, 01 Jun 2006, Bob Picco wrote:
> >>  
> >> -#if !defined(__x86_64__) && !defined(__ia64__) && !defined(__sparc_v9__)
> >> +#if !defined(__x86_64__) && !defined(__ia64__) && !defined(__sparc_v9__) && \
> >> +	!defined(__powerpc64__)
> > 
> > Why not just !defined(__LP64__) ?
> 
> _BITSIZE == 64 is really the right formula... if I remember correctly, there were some 
> 64-bit platforms (Alpha?) which didn't conform, though.  I will look at this later today.
> 
> 	-hpa

indeed aboves line contains an mistake by an earlier patch of mine.

-#if !defined(__x86_64__) && !defined(__ia64__) && !defined(__sparc_v9__)
+#if !defined(__x86_64__) && !defined(__ia64__) && !defined(__arch64__)

is atm needed to get statfs right on sparc.

-- 
maks

Re: [PATCH] klibc

[H. Peter Anvin]

maximilian attems wrote:
> On Thu, 01 June 2006, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:
>>> On Thu, 01 Jun 2006, Bob Picco wrote:
>>>>  
>>>> -#if !defined(__x86_64__) && !defined(__ia64__) && !defined(__sparc_v9__)
>>>> +#if !defined(__x86_64__) && !defined(__ia64__) && !defined(__sparc_v9__) && \
>>>> +	!defined(__powerpc64__)
>>> Why not just !defined(__LP64__) ?
>> _BITSIZE == 64 is really the right formula... if I remember correctly, there were some 
>> 64-bit platforms (Alpha?) which didn't conform, though.  I will look at this later today.
>>
>> 	-hpa
> 
> indeed aboves line contains an mistake by an earlier patch of mine.
> 
> -#if !defined(__x86_64__) && !defined(__ia64__) && !defined(__sparc_v9__)
> +#if !defined(__x86_64__) && !defined(__ia64__) && !defined(__arch64__)
> 
> is atm needed to get statfs right on sparc.
> 

__arch64__ is ugly; it doesn't say it's a sparc thing.  I have added 
-D__sparc_v9__ to the sparc64 MCONFIG file, so I think that's fine.

Perhaps the right thing to do is to make this an archconfig.h configurable.

	-hpa

Re: [PATCH] klibc

[David Miller]

From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2006 15:26:05 -0700

> __arch64__ is ugly; it doesn't say it's a sparc thing.  I have added 
> -D__sparc_v9__ to the sparc64 MCONFIG file, so I think that's fine.
> 
> Perhaps the right thing to do is to make this an archconfig.h configurable.

Please don't do this, I'll explain why.

Using __sparc_v9__ is incorrect, here is the lowdown on these defines:

1) __sparc_v9__ means "-mcpu={ultrasparc*,niagara}" or "-mcpu=v9".
   Although this is implied by "-m64" it can be used for 32-bit
   code too.

   __sparc_v9__ means "using v9 instructions" which does not
   necessarily mean 64-bit

2) "__sparc__ && __arch64__" means 64-bit sparc

People often get this wrong, and it certainly is confusing.

Jakub Jelinek gives a good explanation on the gcc mailing
list here:

	http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2002-12/msg00108.html

Thanks.

Re: [PATCH] klibc

[H. Peter Anvin]

David Miller wrote:
>  
>> __arch64__ is ugly; it doesn't say it's a sparc thing.  I have added 
>> -D__sparc_v9__ to the sparc64 MCONFIG file, so I think that's fine.
>>
>> Perhaps the right thing to do is to make this an archconfig.h configurable.
> 
> Please don't do this, I'll explain why.
> 
> Using __sparc_v9__ is incorrect, here is the lowdown on these defines:
> 
> 1) __sparc_v9__ means "-mcpu={ultrasparc*,niagara}" or "-mcpu=v9".
>    Although this is implied by "-m64" it can be used for 32-bit
>    code too.
> 
>    __sparc_v9__ means "using v9 instructions" which does not
>    necessarily mean 64-bit
> 
> 2) "__sparc__ && __arch64__" means 64-bit sparc
> 
> People often get this wrong, and it certainly is confusing.
> 

Okay, how about __sparc64__ then (via -D in the MCONFIG file.)

I did change this particular instance to be a archconfig variable, so it 
doesn't exist (I try very much to avoid architecture-specific #ifdefs in 
bulk code.)

	-hpa