Hi Mahesh, On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 16:51:16 +0530 Mahesh Jagannath Salgaonkar <mahesh at linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > >> /* > >> + * ELF note section for erase information > >> + * > >> + * According to elf.h the unused values are 0x15(21) through 0xff. The value > >> + * range 0x1XX, 0x2XX and 0x3XX is been used for PPC, i386 and s390 > >> + * respectively. > >> + * > >> + * Using 0xff to be on safer side so that any new Elf Note addition in elf.h > >> + * after 0x15 value would not clash. > >> + */ > >> +#ifndef NT_ERASE_INFO > >> +#define NT_ERASE_INFO (0xff) /* Contains erased information. */ > >> +#endif > >> +#define ERASEINFO_NOTE_NAME "ERASEINFO" > >> +#define ERASEINFO_NOTE_NAME_BYTES (sizeof(ERASEINFO_NOTE_NAME)) > > > > I feel NT_ERASE_INFO(0xff) is not safe and we can use ERASEINFO_NOTE_NAME > > instead. > > Do you mean having n_type set to '0' and just using > 'ERASEINFO_NOTE_NAME' to identify the eraseinfo note? Yes, that is I wanted to say. thanks. > if Yes, then I think I am ok with that. OK, I have merged the above change(commit: 8b8f13e6e84ad628a54bbe2d930aa15224ef5d92) into the filter-out-devel branch. Thanks Ken'ichi Ohmichi
