[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: Ramkumar Ramachandra <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] um: Create defconfigs for i386 and x86_64
From: Richard Weinberger <>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 14:04:53 +0200
Cc:, Michal Marek <>,,,, Jeff Dike <>, Guan Xuetao <>, Thomas Gleixner <>, Ingo Molnar <>, "H. Peter Anvin" <>,,, LKML <>,,,,, Toralf Förster <>
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: <> <> <> <> <>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7
Am 26.09.2013 13:57, schrieb Ramkumar Ramachandra:
> 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.

A 32Bit UML kernel can run 32Bit users, a 64Bit UML kernel can only
run 64Bit userland. We have no 32Bit compat layer on x86_64.
Patches are welcome.

>>> [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.

I really don't know. That is not by design.

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

I wrote "SUBARCH=x86" *not* SUBARCH=i386.

Again, if SUBARCH=x86 works too I'll happily merge it.
But as of now it breaks existing setups.


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