Re: [patch 2/7] uml: Build fix for TT w/o SKAS

Re: [patch 2/7] uml: Build fix for TT w/o SKAS

[Blaisorblade]

On Thursday 28 October 2004 00:27, akpm@osdl.org wrote:
> From: Chris Wedgwood <cw@f00f.org>

> This is required to get UML to build with only TT mode.

Drop that - the fix is in my tree currently, I'll forward it soon. And the 
fix, instead of #ifdef'ing it out, adds the support for using TT & SYSEMU.
-- 
Paolo Giarrusso, aka Blaisorblade
Linux registered user n. 292729

Re: [patch 2/7] uml: Build fix for TT w/o SKAS

[Chris Wedgwood]

On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 08:49:42PM +0200, Blaisorblade wrote:

> Drop that - the fix is in my tree currently, I'll forward it
> soon. And the fix, instead of #ifdef'ing it out, adds the support
> for using TT & SYSEMU.

SKAS / SYSEMU are entirely uninteresting right now until the host OS
support for these gets merged

i really don't think it's a good enough reason to hold other things up
and i'd prefer to see the fixes go in as-is and further updates ontop
of these

Re: [patch 2/7] uml: Build fix for TT w/o SKAS

[Blaisorblade]

On Thursday 28 October 2004 21:29, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 08:49:42PM +0200, Blaisorblade wrote:
> > Drop that - the fix is in my tree currently, I'll forward it
> > soon. And the fix, instead of #ifdef'ing it out, adds the support
> > for using TT & SYSEMU.

> SKAS / SYSEMU are entirely uninteresting right now until the host OS
> support for these gets merged

Well, this is completely questionable. Even if SKAS3 will never be merged in 
mainline on the host side, the SKAS3 support in UML has already been merged. 
And I think SYSEMU will be much more welcome than those patches (in fact, 
it's completely independent from the SKAS patch).

For an earlier discussion, see:

http://www.kerneltraffic.org/kernel-traffic/kt20030106_199.html#4

And even if SKAS3 will not be merged, SKAS4 will, and the current UML SKAS 
code should need just a very few changes. While having the code in mainline 
is important to get it fixed with API changes.

> i really don't think it's a good enough reason to hold other things up
> and i'd prefer to see the fixes go in as-is and further updates ontop
> of these

This would be generally right, but for now, please hold on until next -rc.
Sorry for the problem and thanks for the help!
-- 
Paolo Giarrusso, aka Blaisorblade
Linux registered user n. 292729