Quoting Serge E. Hallyn (se...@hallyn.com): > Quoting Alexander Graf (ag...@suse.de): > > > > > > On 27.08.14 23:35, Peter Maydell wrote: > > > On 27 August 2014 22:30, Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de> wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >> On 27.08.14 21:01, Peter Maydell wrote: > > >>> [adding qemu-ppc] > > >>> > > >>> On 27 August 2014 19:45, Serge E. Hallyn <se...@hallyn.com> wrote: > > >>>> Quoting Peter Maydell (peter.mayd...@linaro.org): > > >>>>> On 27 August 2014 18:55, Serge E. Hallyn <se...@hallyn.com> wrote: > > >>>>>> This is a part of a patch proposed by jaejunh at > > >>>>>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/qemu/+bug/1358268 > > >>>>>> which enables running ppc64le binaries through qemu-user. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> I'm confused -- wouldn't these be handled by the existing > > >>>>> "ppc64le" support? > > >>> > > >>>> It looks to me like the point was to add a TARGET_ABI32=y > > >>>> version (and I dunno, something about CONFIG_LIBDECNUMBER=y > > >>>> for 32-bit). > > >>> > > >>> Wouldn't that be a "ppc64leabi32" target? > > >> > > >> There is no LE support for 32bit on PPC :). > > > > > > ...in that case what is the original bug reporter actually > > > asking for? > > > > Not sure - the only thing that remotely resembles what he's describing > > would be if you enable the 32bit personality: > > > > $ /uname-a.sh > > Linux tempranillo 3.17.0-rc1-2-default+ #1 SMP Thu Jan 1 01:04:00 CET > > 1970 ppc64le ppc64le ppc64le GNU/Linux > > > > $ perl -e 'syscall(136, 8); exec "/uname-a.sh"' > > Linux tempranillo 3.17.0-rc1-2-default+ #1 SMP Thu Jan 1 01:04:00 CET > > 1970 ppcle ppcle ppcle GNU/Linux > > > > but that doesn't mean that there is an actual ABI change. The ABI is > > still ppc64le, as all binaries are still running in 64bit mode. > > > > So before we add anything to QEMU, I would like to first see someone > > point me to kernel patches that actually enable LE on Linux for 32bit > > user space. So far I'm not aware of any (and I doubt it makes much sense). > > Thanks, guys, I'll ping him for that.
(Fwiw my reading of the original bug description is that in fact he is working on the kernel patch in question)
