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

Bryan Wu
2007-09-28T15:50:30Z

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
>