* Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. ah, that's the happy variant. > > 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. maybe someone gets interested in cleaning up those bits. Our ASRL-fu is still a bit ... random all around. Ingo -- 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
