Re: [PATCH 1/1] UML: fix missing non-blocking I/O, now DEBUG_SHIRQ works

2007-06-12 Thread Jeff Dike
On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 08:44:37AM +0300, Eduard-Gabriel Munteanu wrote: > Okay, I don't have an x86_64, sparc64 or something similar, as my > computer is an x86, so I can't contradict this. If everything is fine on > such arches, no fix is needed when nothing's broken... though I still > think

Re: [PATCH 1/1] UML: fix missing non-blocking I/O, now DEBUG_SHIRQ works

2007-06-12 Thread Jeff Dike
On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 08:44:37AM +0300, Eduard-Gabriel Munteanu wrote: Okay, I don't have an x86_64, sparc64 or something similar, as my computer is an x86, so I can't contradict this. If everything is fine on such arches, no fix is needed when nothing's broken... though I still think

Re: [PATCH 1/1] UML: fix missing non-blocking I/O, now DEBUG_SHIRQ works

2007-06-11 Thread Eduard-Gabriel Munteanu
*This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(r) Pro* Jeff Dike wrote: No it won't. UML builds without warnings here on x86_64. Okay, I don't have an x86_64, sparc64 or something similar, as my computer is an x86, so I can't contradict this. If everything is fine on such

Re: [PATCH 1/1] UML: fix missing non-blocking I/O, now DEBUG_SHIRQ works

2007-06-11 Thread Jeff Dike
On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 01:39:25AM +0300, Eduard-Gabriel Munteanu wrote: > The cast isn't done right. Doing "fd = (long) dev_id;" doesn't help, > since you pass fd to mconsole_get_request() as is. And > mconsole_get_request() expects an integer: > int mconsole_get_request(int fd, struct

Re: [PATCH 1/1] UML: fix missing non-blocking I/O, now DEBUG_SHIRQ works

2007-06-11 Thread Eduard-Gabriel Munteanu
*This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(r) Pro* Jeff Dike wrote: *This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(r) Pro* *This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(r) Pro* On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 10:39:56PM +0300, Eduard-Gabriel

Re: [PATCH 1/1] UML: fix missing non-blocking I/O, now DEBUG_SHIRQ works

2007-06-11 Thread Jeff Dike
On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 10:39:56PM +0300, Eduard-Gabriel Munteanu wrote: > No offense, but this is an ugly hack. I'm not going to defend it too much, but the alternatives don't seem any better to me. > What if sizeof(int) != sizeof(long)? Doesn't matter - the casting will preserve the value.

Re: [PATCH 1/1] UML: fix missing non-blocking I/O, now DEBUG_SHIRQ works

2007-06-11 Thread Eduard-Gabriel Munteanu
*This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(r) Pro* Jeff Dike wrote: I don't really like this section though. The casting I have now isn't pleasant, but I don't like adding a new global to get rid of it. diff --git a/arch/um/drivers/mconsole_kern.c

Re: [PATCH 1/1] UML: fix missing non-blocking I/O, now DEBUG_SHIRQ works

2007-06-11 Thread Jeff Dike
On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 01:01:57AM +0300, Eduard-Gabriel Munteanu wrote: > DEBUG_SHIRQ generates spurious interrupts, triggering handlers such as > mconsole_interrupt() or line_interrupt(). They expect data to be > available to be read from their sockets/pipes, but in the case of > spurious

Re: [PATCH 1/1] UML: fix missing non-blocking I/O, now DEBUG_SHIRQ works

2007-06-11 Thread Eduard-Gabriel Munteanu
*This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(r) Pro* Eduard-Gabriel Munteanu wrote: The patch was written and tested on Linux 2.6.22-rc2-mm1. Also tested on git. I forgot to tell you the diff is done against git (it was made on that -mm, diffed, applied to git and then

Re: [PATCH 1/1] UML: fix missing non-blocking I/O, now DEBUG_SHIRQ works

2007-06-11 Thread Eduard-Gabriel Munteanu
*This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(r) Pro* Eduard-Gabriel Munteanu wrote: The patch was written and tested on Linux 2.6.22-rc2-mm1. Also tested on git. I forgot to tell you the diff is done against git (it was made on that -mm, diffed, applied to git and then

Re: [PATCH 1/1] UML: fix missing non-blocking I/O, now DEBUG_SHIRQ works

2007-06-11 Thread Jeff Dike
On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 01:01:57AM +0300, Eduard-Gabriel Munteanu wrote: DEBUG_SHIRQ generates spurious interrupts, triggering handlers such as mconsole_interrupt() or line_interrupt(). They expect data to be available to be read from their sockets/pipes, but in the case of spurious

Re: [PATCH 1/1] UML: fix missing non-blocking I/O, now DEBUG_SHIRQ works

2007-06-11 Thread Eduard-Gabriel Munteanu
*This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(r) Pro* Jeff Dike wrote: I don't really like this section though. The casting I have now isn't pleasant, but I don't like adding a new global to get rid of it. diff --git a/arch/um/drivers/mconsole_kern.c

Re: [PATCH 1/1] UML: fix missing non-blocking I/O, now DEBUG_SHIRQ works

2007-06-11 Thread Jeff Dike
On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 10:39:56PM +0300, Eduard-Gabriel Munteanu wrote: No offense, but this is an ugly hack. I'm not going to defend it too much, but the alternatives don't seem any better to me. What if sizeof(int) != sizeof(long)? Doesn't matter - the casting will preserve the value.

Re: [PATCH 1/1] UML: fix missing non-blocking I/O, now DEBUG_SHIRQ works

2007-06-11 Thread Eduard-Gabriel Munteanu
*This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(r) Pro* Jeff Dike wrote: *This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(r) Pro* *This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(r) Pro* On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 10:39:56PM +0300, Eduard-Gabriel

Re: [PATCH 1/1] UML: fix missing non-blocking I/O, now DEBUG_SHIRQ works

2007-06-11 Thread Jeff Dike
On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 01:39:25AM +0300, Eduard-Gabriel Munteanu wrote: The cast isn't done right. Doing fd = (long) dev_id; doesn't help, since you pass fd to mconsole_get_request() as is. And mconsole_get_request() expects an integer: int mconsole_get_request(int fd, struct mc_request

Re: [PATCH 1/1] UML: fix missing non-blocking I/O, now DEBUG_SHIRQ works

2007-06-11 Thread Eduard-Gabriel Munteanu
*This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(r) Pro* Jeff Dike wrote: No it won't. UML builds without warnings here on x86_64. Okay, I don't have an x86_64, sparc64 or something similar, as my computer is an x86, so I can't contradict this. If everything is fine on such

[PATCH 1/1] UML: fix missing non-blocking I/O, now DEBUG_SHIRQ works

2007-06-10 Thread Eduard-Gabriel Munteanu
*This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(r) Pro* DEBUG_SHIRQ generates spurious interrupts, triggering handlers such as mconsole_interrupt() or line_interrupt(). They expect data to be available to be read from their sockets/pipes, but in the case of spurious

[PATCH 1/1] UML: fix missing non-blocking I/O, now DEBUG_SHIRQ works

2007-06-10 Thread Eduard-Gabriel Munteanu
*This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(r) Pro* DEBUG_SHIRQ generates spurious interrupts, triggering handlers such as mconsole_interrupt() or line_interrupt(). They expect data to be available to be read from their sockets/pipes, but in the case of spurious

[PATCH 1/1] UML: fix missing non-blocking I/O, now DEBUG_SHIRQ works

2007-06-10 Thread Eduard-Gabriel Munteanu
*This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(r) Pro* DEBUG_SHIRQ generates spurious interrupts, triggering handlers such as mconsole_interrupt() or line_interrupt(). They expect data to be available to be read from their sockets/pipes, but in the case of spurious

[PATCH 1/1] UML: fix missing non-blocking I/O, now DEBUG_SHIRQ works

2007-06-10 Thread Eduard-Gabriel Munteanu
*This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(r) Pro* DEBUG_SHIRQ generates spurious interrupts, triggering handlers such as mconsole_interrupt() or line_interrupt(). They expect data to be available to be read from their sockets/pipes, but in the case of spurious