Re: [PATCH] x86, hweight: Fix UML boot crash

[Borislav Petkov]

From: Jeff Dike <jdike@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, May 30, 2010 at 10:32:12PM -0400

> On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 09:39:56PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > Which begs the question why _is_ UML sucking in x86 stuff and can anyone
> > provide us with some sensible reasons? Because if there aren't any, it
> > is their includes that should be fixed. Let me see what I can do to
> > redirect hweight stuff properly...
> 
> Generally, UML pulls in the host arch headers because they work.  When
> they are only architecture-dependent (and not, say, depending on the
> host task struct or something), they're fine.
> 
> What's the include path from UML to the x86 hweight stuff?

<arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h> includes <asm/arch_hweight.h> which are
the optimized variants.

I have a patch which with which UML falls back to the defaults:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127525067908139&w=2 but hpa's concern
is still valid: UML shouldn't choke on the optimized variants. Anyways,
here's the original commit d61931d89be506372d01a90d1755f6d0a9fafe2d -
you might be able to find something which interferes with UML in there.

Thanks.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.

Operating Systems Research Center
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/