> > Andrew, we have one other patch (the powerpc bits) on top of that one.
> > Do you want to carry both in -mm on top of John's patch ? We would like
> > that in .27 though, I don't know what your merge plans are for John's
> > patch.
> >
>
> How about I send John's patch Linuswards right now?
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 13:24:15 +1000 Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-07-18 at 13:28 -0500, Nathan Lynch wrote:
> > John Reiser wrote:
> > > Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 17:19:32 -0500
> > > > Nathan Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > >
On Fri, 2008-07-18 at 13:28 -0500, Nathan Lynch wrote:
> John Reiser wrote:
> > Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 17:19:32 -0500
> > > Nathan Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >> [snip]
> > >> A new aux vector entry, AT_BASE_PLATFORM, will denote the actual
> > >> har
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 13:31:29 -0700
John Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Elsewhere, I've staked out use of a new AT_WINE_PRELOAD_INFO
> at 30. Avoid that one, please. :-)
The reliable way in which to reserve these numbers is to patch the
header file.
__
Nathan Lynch wrote:
> +#define AT_EXECFN 31/* filename of program */
>
> How did you arrive at 31 for the value of AT_EXECFN? I haven't been
> able to find out how AT_* values are "allocated", or what the reason
> is for the gap between AT_SECURE and AT_SYSINFO.
The numbers are chosen
John Reiser wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 17:19:32 -0500
> > Nathan Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> [snip]
> >> A new aux vector entry, AT_BASE_PLATFORM, will denote the actual hardware.
> [snip]
>
> > OK.
> >
> > But it conflicts directly with the already-
Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 17:19:32 -0500
> Nathan Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> [snip]
>> A new aux vector entry, AT_BASE_PLATFORM, will denote the actual hardware.
[snip]
> OK.
>
> But it conflicts directly with the already-queued
> execve-filename-document-and-expor
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 17:19:32 -0500
Nathan Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Some IBM POWER-based platforms have the ability to run in a
> mode which mostly appears to the OS as a different processor from the
> actual hardware. For example, a Power6 system may appear to be a
> Power5+, which make
Some IBM POWER-based platforms have the ability to run in a
mode which mostly appears to the OS as a different processor from the
actual hardware. For example, a Power6 system may appear to be a
Power5+, which makes the AT_PLATFORM value "power5+". This means that
programs are restricted to the I
