Re: [x86 patch] Fix UML signal.h build errors

2007-10-26 Thread Al Viro
On Sat, Oct 27, 2007 at 11:35:10AM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote: > > b) I'd rather have __arch_um__ mentioned explicitly in 3 places where > > we do care about difference between i386 and uml/i386 than have certain > > to be forgotten rules for places like include/asm-x86 > > > > c) if you look at th

Re: [x86 patch] Fix UML signal.h build errors

2007-10-26 Thread Balbir Singh
Al Viro wrote: > On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 09:01:52PM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote: > >> Thats nice, I wonder why I missed them searching on lkml in my gmail box >> :( >> >> Is __arch_um__ the right thing to do or BITS_PER_LONG == 32? I prefer >> BITS_PER_LONG == 32 over #if defined(__i386__) || define

Re: [x86 patch] Fix UML signal.h build errors

2007-10-26 Thread Al Viro
On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 09:01:52PM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote: > Thats nice, I wonder why I missed them searching on lkml in my gmail box > :( > > Is __arch_um__ the right thing to do or BITS_PER_LONG == 32? I prefer > BITS_PER_LONG == 32 over #if defined(__i386__) || defined(__arch__um__). > I gu

Re: [x86 patch] Fix UML signal.h build errors

2007-10-25 Thread Balbir Singh
Jeff Dike wrote: > On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 06:30:22PM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote: >> Fix build errors seen in UML. > > Al fixed these already. > > FWIW, below is a rolled-up combo patch which make 2.6.24-rc1 UML build. > > It includes Al's build fixes, Wang Cong's driver fix, and a declaration >

Re: [x86 patch] Fix UML signal.h build errors

2007-10-25 Thread Jeff Dike
On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 06:30:22PM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote: > Fix build errors seen in UML. Al fixed these already. FWIW, below is a rolled-up combo patch which make 2.6.24-rc1 UML build. It includes Al's build fixes, Wang Cong's driver fix, and a declaration mismatch in sched.c.