On Thursday 15 November 2012 06:05 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 15 November 2012, Vineet Gupta wrote:
>> So the primary concern here is not breaking the userspace ABI - right ?
>>
>> For syscalls I agree that we will indeed need to fix the ABI - by fixing
>> uClibc. And if uClibc doesn't
On Thursday 15 November 2012, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> So the primary concern here is not breaking the userspace ABI - right ?
>
> For syscalls I agree that we will indeed need to fix the ABI - by fixing
> uClibc. And if uClibc doesn't merge the fixes we can stay out of tree
> for uClibc - as we curr
On Tuesday 13 November 2012 04:07 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 13 November 2012, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:
>> So, I completely agree about not adding more deprecated system call or
>> ABIs (thinking about the ptrace regset issues in another patch in the
>> same patchset), but on the other ha
On 14/11/12 12:23, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 13 November 2012, James Hogan wrote:
>> Hopefully with several architecture maintainers asking for this it might
>> get somewhere, but indeed we're aware of the feedback problem on that list.
>>
>> The points that I've considered for defaulting t
On Tuesday 13 November 2012, James Hogan wrote:
> Hopefully with several architecture maintainers asking for this it might
> get somewhere, but indeed we're aware of the feedback problem on that list.
>
> The points that I've considered for defaulting to old syscalls:
> * doesn't change existing b
On 13/11/12 12:01, Jonas Bonn wrote:
> On 13 November 2012 12:41, James Hogan wrote:
>> The uClibc patches I mentioned have been posted, see here:
>>
>> http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/uclibc/2012-November/047110.html
>>
>> Please do try them out and provide any feedback.
>>
>
> Hi James,
>
>
On 13 November 2012 12:41, James Hogan wrote:
> The uClibc patches I mentioned have been posted, see here:
>
> http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/uclibc/2012-November/047110.html
>
> Please do try them out and provide any feedback.
>
Hi James,
Many thanks for picking this up...
This is the thir
On 09/11/12 09:50, James Hogan wrote:
> On 07/11/12 14:21, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Wednesday 07 November 2012, Vineet Gupta wrote:
>>> + * Being uClibc based we need some of the deprecated syscalls:
>>> + * -Not emulated by uClibc at all
>>> + * unlink, mkdir,... (needed by Busybox, LTP etc)
On Tuesday 13 November 2012, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:
> So, I completely agree about not adding more deprecated system call or
> ABIs (thinking about the ptrace regset issues in another patch in the
> same patchset), but on the other hand I have to wonder if having a
> port in the tree that doesn't
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 07 November 2012, Vineet Gupta wrote:
>> + * Being uClibc based we need some of the deprecated syscalls:
>> + * -Not emulated by uClibc at all
>> + * unlink, mkdir,... (needed by Busybox, LTP etc)
>> + * times (needed by L
On 07/11/12 14:21, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 07 November 2012, Vineet Gupta wrote:
>> + * Being uClibc based we need some of the deprecated syscalls:
>> + * -Not emulated by uClibc at all
>> + * unlink, mkdir,... (needed by Busybox, LTP etc)
>> + * times (needed by LTP pan test ha
On Wednesday 07 November 2012, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> + * Being uClibc based we need some of the deprecated syscalls:
> + * -Not emulated by uClibc at all
> + * unlink, mkdir,... (needed by Busybox, LTP etc)
> + * times (needed by LTP pan test harness)
> + * -Not emulated efficiently
> + *
12 matches
Mail list logo
