On Feb 17, 2012, at 2:54 PM, Julio Merino wrote: > On 2/17/12 5:45 PM, Matt Thomas wrote: >> >> On Feb 17, 2012, at 2:43 PM, Julio Merino wrote: >> >>> On 2/17/12 5:43 PM, Matt Thomas wrote: >>>> >>>> On Feb 17, 2012, at 2:36 PM, Julio Merino wrote: >>>> >>>>> Module Name: src >>>>> Committed By: jmmv >>>>> Date: Fri Feb 17 22:36:50 UTC 2012 >>>>> >>>>> Modified Files: >>>>> src/distrib/sets/lists/tests: module.mi >>>>> src/tests/modules: Makefile >>>>> Added Files: >>>>> src/tests/modules: t_abi_uvm.sh >>>>> src/tests/modules/k_uvm: Makefile k_uvm.c >>>>> >>>>> Log Message: >>>>> Add a test to ensure that PAGE_SIZE is available in kernel modules. >>>>> This test reproduces the error condition in PR port-macppc/46041 and >>>>> therefore it is an xfail in this particular platform. >>>> >>>> I explicitly made PAGE_SIZE unavailable for powerpc. This was part >>>> of having one consistent view for OEA,BOOKE,IBM4XX all which use >>>> different page size. So you can't rely on PAGE_SIZE. >>> >>> So the modules are broken on purpose? >> >> Yes. > > Interesting. If that's the case, shouldn't we break PAGE_SIZE for all > platforms and keep things consistent?
For those with variable page sizes (like powerpc or mips), yes. > The modules that are broken (see the referenced PR for a list) fail due to a > missing uvmexp_pagesize symbol (*not* PAGE_SIZE itself), which I assumed was > there to prevent depending on the PAGE_SIZE compile-time constant. I > understand this information not being statically-available because of > variable-page sizes in these platforms. properly should use uvmexp.pagesize instead.