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-queued
> > execve-filename-document-and-export-via-auxiliary-vector.patch
Okay, I can rebase on -mm.
> It seems to me that most of the patch conflicts are mechanical
> and could be merged mechanically.
>
> However I believe that the documentation change to this comment is important:
> -----
> > #ifdef __KERNEL__
> > -#define AT_VECTOR_SIZE_BASE (14 + 2) /* NEW_AUX_ENT entries in auxiliary
> > table */
> > +#define AT_VECTOR_SIZE_BASE 17 /* NEW_AUX_ENT entries in auxiliary table */
> > + /* number of "#define AT_.*" above, minus {AT_NULL, AT_IGNORE,
> > AT_NOTELF} */
> > #endif
> -----
> I scratched my head for a while to figure out that AT_NOTELF also was
> a subtraction as far as AT_VECTOR_SIZE_BASE was concerned.
John, from your patch:
+#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.
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
