re: [PAE support] Types + cosmetic fixes

[matthew green <mrg%eterna.com.au@localhost>]

   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?
   >
   > i386
   > i386-pae
   > i386-xen
   > i386-xen-pae
   > amd64
   > amd64-xen
   
   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.


.mrg.