John Reiser wrote:
quoted text
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 17:19:32 -0500
> > Nathan Lynch <ntl@pobox.com> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >> [snip]
> >> A new aux vector entry, AT_BASE_PLATFORM, will denote the actual hardware.
> [snip]
> 
> > OK.
> > 
> > But it conflicts directly with the already-queued
> > execve-filename-document-and-export-via-auxiliary-vector.patch

Okay, I can rebase on -mm.


quoted text
> It seems to me that most of the patch conflicts are mechanical
> and could be merged mechanically.
> 
> However I believe that the documentation change to this comment is important:
> -----
> >  #ifdef __KERNEL__
> > -#define AT_VECTOR_SIZE_BASE (14 + 2) /* NEW_AUX_ENT entries in auxiliary table */
> > +#define AT_VECTOR_SIZE_BASE 17 /* NEW_AUX_ENT entries in auxiliary table */
> > +  /* number of "#define AT_.*" above, minus {AT_NULL, AT_IGNORE, AT_NOTELF} */
> >  #endif
> -----
> I scratched my head for a while to figure out that AT_NOTELF also was
> a subtraction as far as AT_VECTOR_SIZE_BASE was concerned.

John, from your patch:

+#define AT_EXECFN  31	/* filename of program */

How did you arrive at 31 for the value of AT_EXECFN?  I haven't been
able to find out how AT_* values are "allocated", or what the reason
is for the gap between AT_SECURE and AT_SYSINFO.
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/