On Monday 27 April 2015 11:26:22 Tobias Klauser wrote: > On 2015-04-27 at 09:48:39 +0200, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Monday 27 April 2015 09:42:41 Tobias Klauser wrote: > > > > diff --git a/arch/h8300/include/asm/elf.h b/arch/h8300/include/asm/elf.h > > > > new file mode 100644 > > > > index 0000000..09031d0 > > > > --- /dev/null > > > > +++ b/arch/h8300/include/asm/elf.h > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,101 @@ > > > > +#ifndef __ASM_H8300_ELF_H > > > > +#define __ASM_H8300_ELF_H > > > > + > > > > +/* > > > > + * ELF register definitions.. > > > > + */ > > > > + > > > > +#include <asm/ptrace.h> > > > > +#include <asm/user.h> > > > > + > > > > +typedef unsigned long elf_greg_t; > > > > + > > > > +#define ELF_NGREG (sizeof(struct user_regs_struct) / sizeof(elf_greg_t)) > > > > +typedef elf_greg_t elf_gregset_t[ELF_NGREG]; > > > > +typedef unsigned long elf_fpregset_t; > > > > + > > > > +/* > > > > + * This is used to ensure we don't load something for the wrong architecture. > > > > + */ > > > > +#define elf_check_arch(x) ((x)->e_machine == EM_H8_300) > > > > > > EM_H8_300 is still used before it is introduced in patch 15/17, please > > > change the patch order. Otherwise you break bisectability. > > > > While that is true in principle, I really wouldn't care about that > > when introducing a new architecture: There is no way to use this > > code unless you introduce all code first. > > Agreed. But should the ELF machine at least be introduced before the > build infrastructure (patch 10/17) is added? Otherwise we're able to > compile the new arch port in principle but it will fail due to the > missing definition. > Yes, moving the the patch that adds the build scripts last in the series makes sense. Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
