On 7 March 2014 10:45, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On 7 March 2014 02:19, Riku Voipio wrote:
> > So you agree these patches are the way to go?
> I haven't actually reviewed them but I think the idea is right,
> yes.
With the hard freeze getting close, and me being away until wednesday, I
think I'l
On 7 March 2014 02:19, Riku Voipio wrote:
> So you agree these patches are the way to go?
I haven't actually reviewed them but I think the idea is right,
yes.
-- PMM
On 4 March 2014 13:41, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 4 March 2014 11:32, Alex Bennée wrote:
> > Is the effect of this to report system uname or minimum whichever is
higher?
>
> That's what this patch does. The old configure stuff which
> this patchset removed made it report "always that version",
> I
Peter Maydell writes:
> On 4 March 2014 16:31, Alex Bennée wrote:
>> Only I didn't see linux-user/aarch64 in the diffstat, or did I miss
>> another patch?
>
> That's because in master we're already setting the minimum
> uname for aarch64...
Ahh, sneaked in while I wasn't looking ;-)
--
Alex
On 4 March 2014 16:31, Alex Bennée wrote:
> Only I didn't see linux-user/aarch64 in the diffstat, or did I miss
> another patch?
That's because in master we're already setting the minimum
uname for aarch64...
thanks
-- PMM
Peter Maydell writes:
> On 4 March 2014 11:32, Alex Bennée wrote:
>>
>> riku.voi...@linaro.org writes:
>>
>>> From: Riku Voipio
>>>
>>> Popular glibc based distributions[1] require minimum
>>> 2.6.32 as kernel version. For some targets 2.6.18
>>> would be enough, but dropping so low would mean
On 4 March 2014 11:32, Alex Bennée wrote:
>
> riku.voi...@linaro.org writes:
>
>> From: Riku Voipio
>>
>> Popular glibc based distributions[1] require minimum
>> 2.6.32 as kernel version. For some targets 2.6.18
>> would be enough, but dropping so low would mean some
>> suboptimal system calls co
riku.voi...@linaro.org writes:
> From: Riku Voipio
>
> Popular glibc based distributions[1] require minimum
> 2.6.32 as kernel version. For some targets 2.6.18
> would be enough, but dropping so low would mean some
> suboptimal system calls could get used.
Is the effect of this to report system
