[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 1/8] um: Create defconfigs for i386 and x86_64

To: Richard Weinberger <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] um: Create defconfigs for i386 and x86_64
From: Ramkumar Ramachandra <>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 17:27:29 +0530
Cc:, Michal Marek <>,,,, Jeff Dike <>, Guan Xuetao <>, Thomas Gleixner <>, Ingo Molnar <>, "H. Peter Anvin" <>,,, LKML <>,,,,, Toralf Förster <>
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=Qn3hU3X9Nx2bwPxSc7EIpzpEQGniY99mJm6uPPmj8Bw=; b=aY0gBhxbHv7/df15P8JxWIDI7kgccPRaZ46AezYoA4yE0BVo/1CggY+ogof8jLnRXG 4ZQmEjyTxWY3bSll8dXNJsSe5QwX5hMUcuSsDni+PFMabDbesTBqjROIyKYMtUrudc5r mHM8Q055cgHllJM1lP+bvZ3LsX5bza6aJ35cNS6VkDwKm0uKN/1Jdw7ebLyZpP1HVXDj AEytqGjWNXmtiPY/D6x681T3DVGFrsh9vTfqBaoz1iImwQ6g4I+4S7Vs+KEIalnvMpeJ GWTcBnJw6M1FFgbGisU4IXvzjxZaNEaFgSTrLD1YwRaJKRqUm/jF9KDiQ6oy3P+tYLaM OGyg==
In-reply-to: <>
List-archive: <>
List-help: <>
List-id: linux-mips <>
List-owner: <>
List-post: <>
List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0
List-subscribe: <>
List-unsubscribe: <>
Original-recipient: rfc822;
References: <> <> <> <>
Richard Weinberger wrote:
>> $ file linux
>> linux: ELF 32-bit LSB  executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV),
>> dynamically linked (uses shared libs), for GNU/Linux 2.6.32, not
>> stripped
>> $ ./linux ubd0=busybox-rootfs
>> [...]
>> Kernel panic - not syncing: No init found.  Try passing init= option
>> to kernel. See Linux Documentation/init.txt for guidance.
> I don't know that rootfs but it looks like there is no init.

Ofcourse there's an init on the busybox-rootfs, and I'm able to boot
it with an x86_64 Linux. The reason for panic is incorrect: I think
(although not sure) a 32-bit rootfs userland will work.

>> [1]    25526 abort (core dumped)  linux ubd0=busybox-rootfs
>>                                                            %
>> Rubbish.
> UML core dumps at panic() by design.

On a related note, why does it screw up my terminal? I have to `reset`
to get a nice working terminal.

> Seriously, my plan is to get rid of SUBARCH, that's why I did not push your 
> patches
> upstream and I've send the rid of SUBARCH patch series.
> It turned out that other archs depend on SUBARCH too therefore some more 
> thinking is needed.
> Time passed, merge window closed, $dayjob needed some attention...

Don't let some grand plan stall reasonable patches that fix immediate problems.

> That said, your "arch/um: make it work with defconfig and x86_64" patch is 
> also not perfect.
> "make defconfig ARCH=um SUBARCH=x86" will create x86_64 defconfig, which is 
> wrong and breaks existing
> setups.


  $ make defconfig ARCH=um SUBARCH=i386
  *** Default configuration is based on 'i386_defconfig'
  # configuration written to .config

I can build a 32-bit kernel just fine with my patch applied.

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