From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] improve sys_personality for compat architectures Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 13:58:17 +0100 Message-ID: <20100309125817.GA18435@lst.de> References: <201002021536.51928.arnd@arndb.de> <20100203.091309.52886984.davem@davemloft.net> <4B69D6BA.4030704@zytor.com> <201002040838.10783.arnd@arndb.de> <20100204160057.GA5120@lst.de> <20100305114911.ef629eb1.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100305114911.ef629eb1.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Andrew Morton Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Arnd Bergmann , "H. Peter Anvin" , David Miller , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, tony.luck@intel.com, ralf@linux-mips.org, kyle@mcmartin.ca, benh@kernel.crashing.org, schwidefsky@de.ibm.com, heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 11:49:11AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > Yes, this should be common over architectures. Anyway, I expect there > > to be some discussion until we've reached that point, so for now I'll > > rebase patches 5 and 6 to not require this patch, and will send one > > to kill the unused x86 implementation. Whatever is the final outcome > > can be implemented on top. > > > > This never happened? Seems like no one cared enough to discuss this issue in detail. I'll start a fresh discussion once we got the other patches in and I have a clean sheet to work against. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.210]:54825 "EHLO verein.lst.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751239Ab0CIM7O (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Mar 2010 07:59:14 -0500 Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 13:58:17 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] improve sys_personality for compat architectures Message-ID: <20100309125817.GA18435@lst.de> References: <201002021536.51928.arnd@arndb.de> <20100203.091309.52886984.davem@davemloft.net> <4B69D6BA.4030704@zytor.com> <201002040838.10783.arnd@arndb.de> <20100204160057.GA5120@lst.de> <20100305114911.ef629eb1.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100305114911.ef629eb1.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Andrew Morton Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Arnd Bergmann , "H. Peter Anvin" , David Miller , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, tony.luck@intel.com, ralf@linux-mips.org, kyle@mcmartin.ca, benh@kernel.crashing.org, schwidefsky@de.ibm.com, heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk Message-ID: <20100309125817.HgPoHeZ-VOw0Ce_f9N7eVDUYNkZbV5jOLnXEGc-WyHQ@z> On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 11:49:11AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > Yes, this should be common over architectures. Anyway, I expect there > > to be some discussion until we've reached that point, so for now I'll > > rebase patches 5 and 6 to not require this patch, and will send one > > to kill the unused x86 implementation. Whatever is the final outcome > > can be implemented on top. > > > > This never happened? Seems like no one cared enough to discuss this issue in detail. I'll start a fresh discussion once we got the other patches in and I have a clean sheet to work against.