Re: [RFC v14][PATCH 07/54] cr: extend arch_setup_additional_pages()

[Oren Laadan <orenl-eQaUEPhvms7ENvBUuze7eA@public.gmane.org>]

Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Dave Hansen (dave-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org):
>> On Fri, 2009-05-01 at 10:42 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
>>> Quoting Dave Hansen (dave-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org):
>>>> On Tue, 2009-04-28 at 19:23 -0400, Oren Laadan wrote:
>>>>> From: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
>>>>>
>>>>> Add "start" argument, to request to map vDSO to a specific place,
>>>>> and fail the operation if not.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is useful for restart(2) to ensure that memory layout is restore
>>>>> exactly as needed.
>>>> This needs to go up at the start of the series.  It can get merged
>>>> before everything else.
>>> It does, but now we are sending Oren mixed signals.
>>>
>>> I thought we were talking yesterday on irc about Oren doing append-only
>>> git tree from now on, and someone else (you? :) was going to do patch
>>> integration and sorting and prettifying?
>> I was going to just go and start doing these, but I figured I'd have a
>> run through the patches first.  I probably also shouldn't be doing
>> anything to which Oren (or anyone else) has really strong objections.
>> So, I'll give everyone a chance to discuss and object before I go
>> screwing the patches up. ;)
> 
> True, part of this may be able to go up on its own.  In that case
> 
> 	1. please put the part of my s390 fix patch which applies to
> 	   this patch in
> 

Fixed.

> 	2. as I asked when Alexey posted this, can we remove the
> 	   first argument to arch_setup_additional_pages()?  Noone uses
> 	   it.

I have no objections.

Oren.