On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 11:30 AM, Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > FWIW, I've just pushed (completely untested) arm and alpha > parts of what I described into signal.git#execve2; x86 is > next. Note that after that sys_execve() is identical on > converted architectures and can be merged; ditto for > kernel_execve(). After I do x86 counterpart, I'll > take those guys to fs/exec.c under ifdef for new __ARCH_HAS_... > (and define it on already converted ones, obviously). > Then your patch goes there, except that implementation > gets put into fs/exec.c, under the same ifdef. And with > current_pt_regs() used instead of the extra argument, > of course. From that point on it can be used on any converted > architecture. OK, that makes sense to me. What would you need from me, and when? Should I just wait for your #ifdef-ed sys_execve() in fs/exec.c, and re-spin the patch based on that? Is there anything else I can/should do in the meantime to make this patch acceptable? Meredydd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
