On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Richard Weinberger <richard@xxxxxx> wrote:
> Am 08.07.2014 10:16, schrieb Konstantin Khlebnikov:
>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Richard Weinberger
>> <richard.weinberger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 7:48 AM, Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 2:05 AM, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 05 Jul 2014 15:22:38 +0400 Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> This fixes command # make checkstack for i386/x86_64.
>>>>>> Looks like $UTS_MACHINE is exactly what scripts/checkstack.pl needs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By default $UTS_MACHINE is equal to $ARCH, but some arch/${ARCH}/Makefile
>>>>>> overrides it. This patch updates it also in arch/x86/Makefile.um
>>>>>>
>>>>>> broken in ffee0de ("x86: Default to ARCH=x86 to avoid overriding CONFIG_64BIT")
>>>>>
>>>>> The changelog doesn't describe the bug which is being fixed. It should
>>>>> do so please. If there are any compiler/make error messages then those
>>>>> should be included.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Oh, ok. checkstalk.pl needs either i386 or x86_64, x86 isn't enough.
>>>>
>>>> $ make checkstack
>>>> objdump -d vmlinux $(find . -name '*.ko') | \
>>>> perl /home/blind/src/linux-stable/scripts/checkstack.pl x86
>>>> wrong or unknown architecture "x86"
>>>
>>> And now we need ARCH, SUBARCH and UTS_MACHINE on UML? :-(
>>
>> Nope UTS_MACHINE is autodetected, see hunk Makefile.x86 in my patch.
>>
>> I thought about cleaning this part of UML.
>> For example we could move arch/x86/um into arch/um/x86 and use # make
>> ARCH=um/x86
>
> No way. We moved the x86 stuff to arch/x86/ a few Years ago by design.
Ok, fine. We could leave it in arch/x86/um and use make ARCH=x86/um
>
>> after collecting this stuff together it woud be easier to get rid of
>> forever-broken parts.
>> As I see UML has been designed to work everywhere but SMP seem never worked
>> as well as any host os except of linux or other arch except x86.
>
> Currently UML runs only on x86_32/64.
> Adding/fixing SMP support should be doable.
This might be quite difficult on top of current ptrace-based design.
I thought about running userspace in kvm context, this might be much
faster than ptrace but requires indirect uaccess like for 4gb-split.
But it's very unlikely that I'll find time for that.
>
> Thanks,
> //richard
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kbuild" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
