[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
re: [PAE support] Types + cosmetic fixes
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 12:18:13AM +0100, Jean-Yves Migeon wrote:
> On 02/23/10 20:15, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 04:57:55PM +0100, Jean-Yves Migeon wrote:
> >> Yep, i386-pae. IMHO, modules cannot be "safely" shared between PAE and
> >> non-PAE.
> > Yes. And I don't think making paddr_t 64bits unconditionally would
> > make them magically compatible for modules. There would be other issues.
> Should there be a "machine" (uname -m) defined with the following strings?
I'm not sure what the effect to configure and similar scripts would be.
If this is for modules, I think this needs more though. I suspect some
kernel build options can also cause ABI changes which can cause modules
to fail, so modules should really be per kernel (at last for now, once
we have a documented API useable by modules, this can be rediscussed).
i don't think we need or want to expose this to userland.
i will be making it available some how in the kernel for modules,
by having the $MACHINE part of the module path be something like
the above list. it will also help sparc and powerpc, at least.
Main Index |
Thread Index |