On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 12:51 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, 2008-10-24 at 13:37 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > * Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > The s390 vdso preparation patch "arch_setup_additional_pages argument" > > > > touches other architectures (x86, sh and powerpc): > > > > > > > > arch_setup_additional_pages currently gets two arguments, the binary > > > > format descripton and an indication if the process uses an executable > > > > stack or not. The second argument is not used by anybody, it could be > > > > removed without replacement. > > > > > > hm, this is the first time i've seen this change, > > > > The code is relatively new and I planned it for the merge window for > > 2.6.29. I still have to nag our performance team to do some tests > > with it. > > okay, then i'm confused, the subject line says v2.6.28: > > [GIT PULL] s390 updates for 2.6.28-rc1 > > (i have still no objections to those small x86 bits.) Yeah, that was a misunderstanding between Heiko and me. I planned it for 2.6.29 and didn't tell him about it before I left for vacation. Heiko just went ahead and added it the 2.6.28-rc1 pull request. > > > #define ARCH_HAS_SETUP_ADDITIONAL_PAGES 1 > > > extern int arch_setup_additional_pages(struct linux_binprm *bprm, > > > - int executable_stack); > > > + int uses_interp); > > > > > > why didnt you just add a new uses_interp argument? > > > > I could have but I noticed at the same time that executable_stack is > > unused. If somebody finds a need for the executable_stack argument > > it can easily re-added but I can't think of a use for it. Ergo I > > removed it. > > > > > executable_stack is passed in to potentially enable architectures > > > to be aware of how conservative/legacy the address-space of the > > > binary is - whether to randomize the vdso, etc. exec-shield used > > > to take advantage of that. > > > > What has address space layout / randomization to do with > > executable_stack? You lost me there. > > it's just a historic/quirky connection (non-executable stack was the > first and biggest step towards a more flexible address space layout) - > you were correct to have it cleaned up. Ok, thanks. Less confused now. -- blue skies, Martin. "Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-s390" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
