linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: CVS Update@-mips.org: linux

To: Kumba <kumba@gentoo.org>
Subject: Re: CVS Update@-mips.org: linux
From: Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 12:58:50 +0200
Cc: linux-mips@linux-mips.org
In-reply-to: <4129BECB.7000508@gentoo.org>
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <20040820120223Z8225206-1530+8785@linux-mips.org> <Pine.LNX.4.58L.0408231124040.19572@blysk.ds.pg.gda.pl> <4129BECB.7000508@gentoo.org>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
User-agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 05:54:19AM -0400, Kumba wrote:

> procps is probably the trigger of this.  Me and some other Gentoo/MIPS 
> devs/users got into a bit of a heated discussion w/ the procps 
> maintainer, who didn't quite like the fact that A) We don't use 
> "sanitized" kernel headers B) PAGE_SIZE was hidden on MIPS and C) 
> "properly sanitized" headers would provide PAGE_SIZE.  We opted instead 
> for a patch to procps that used sysconf(_SC_PAGESIZE) to fetch the 
> value, and I guess this just didn't rub the right way w/ the maintainer. 

Who happens to be Albert Calahan, just to mention the name.

As for the sanitized kernel headers package he's probably right.  At the
current state of Linux kernel headers - all architectures, not just MIPS -
mail threads like this will be unavoidable if we try to continue
supporting kernel headers in userspace.  I can be convinced to support
such use to the same point as i386 but not a single symbol beyond that.

> I can post the discussions for those interested (or just looking for 
> amusement), and anyone curious enough can look at proc/procps.h in the 
> procps tree for a rather amusing (IMHO) comment on MIPS at the top of 
> the source.

Whoever wrote that has a very screwed idea of the MIPS realities.

  Ralf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>