Well, I applied the patch. This is not ABI yet and Andy is right it makes more
sense.
On March 30, 2014 12:00:40 PM PDT, Stefani Seibold wrote:
>I think it is in review. I still wait for the confirmation of my assign
>form.
>
>Am Sonntag, den 30.03.2014, 09:59 -0700 schrieb H. Peter Anvin:
>> H
I think it is in review. I still wait for the confirmation of my assign
form.
Am Sonntag, den 30.03.2014, 09:59 -0700 schrieb H. Peter Anvin:
> Has your glibc patch been accepted upstream yet? I'm assuming not, in which
> case this is a legitimate patch.
>
> On March 29, 2014 11:33:37 PM PDT, St
Has your glibc patch been accepted upstream yet? I'm assuming not, in which
case this is a legitimate patch.
On March 29, 2014 11:33:37 PM PDT, Stefani Seibold wrote:
>Am Samstag, den 29.03.2014, 13:15 -0700 schrieb Andy Lutomirski:
>> The new symbols provide the same API as the 64-bit variants,
On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 11:33 PM, Stefani Seibold wrote:
> Am Samstag, den 29.03.2014, 13:15 -0700 schrieb Andy Lutomirski:
>> The new symbols provide the same API as the 64-bit variants, so they
>> should have the same symbol version name. This can't break
>> userspace, since these symbols are n
Am Samstag, den 29.03.2014, 13:15 -0700 schrieb Andy Lutomirski:
> The new symbols provide the same API as the 64-bit variants, so they
> should have the same symbol version name. This can't break
> userspace, since these symbols are new for 32-bit Linux.
>
This breaks my glibc patch... What is
The new symbols provide the same API as the 64-bit variants, so they
should have the same symbol version name. This can't break
userspace, since these symbols are new for 32-bit Linux.
Signed-off-by: Andy Lutomirski
---
arch/x86/vdso/vdso32/vdso32.lds.S | 10 +++---
1 file changed, 7 insert
6 matches
Mail list logo