From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 13:37:24 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] s390 updates for 2.6.28-rc1 Message-ID: <20081024113724.GA21375@elte.hu> References: <20081024105049.GC4620@osiris.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20081024105049.GC4620@osiris.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Archive: List-Post: To: Heiko Carstens Cc: Linus Torvalds , lethal@linux-sh.org, paulus@samba.org, benh@kernel.crashing.org, Andrew Morton , Martin Schwidefsky , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Roland McGrath List-ID: * Heiko Carstens 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, and it looks a bit weird: --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/elf.h +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/elf.h @@ -325,7 +325,7 @@ struct linux_binprm; #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? 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. But there seems to be no in-tree use of that (and if one arises it can just add back that parameter), and i dont want to stand in the way of your pull request either, so for the x86 bits: Acked-by: Ingo Molnar Ingo