[PATCH] x86-64: also define AT_VECTOR_SIZE_ARCH

[PATCH] x86-64: also define AT_VECTOR_SIZE_ARCH

[Jan Beulich]

The patch introducing this left out x86-64, despite it also having
extra entries.

Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@novell.com>
Cc: Olaf Hering <olaf@aepfle.de>

 include/asm-x86/system_64.h |    6 ++++++
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)

--- linux-2.6.24-rc4/include/asm-x86/system_64.h	2007-12-10 16:11:42.000000000 +0100
+++ 2.6.24-rc4-x86_64-at-vector-size/include/asm-x86/system_64.h	2007-12-04 16:09:33.000000000 +0100
@@ -7,6 +7,12 @@
 
 #ifdef __KERNEL__
 
+#ifdef CONFIG_IA32_EMULATION
+#define AT_VECTOR_SIZE_ARCH 2
+#else
+#define AT_VECTOR_SIZE_ARCH 1
+#endif
+
 #define __SAVE(reg,offset) "movq %%" #reg ",(14-" #offset ")*8(%%rsp)\n\t"
 #define __RESTORE(reg,offset) "movq (14-" #offset ")*8(%%rsp),%%" #reg "\n\t"
 

Re: [PATCH] x86-64: also define AT_VECTOR_SIZE_ARCH

[Ingo Molnar]

* Jan Beulich <jbeulich@novell.com> wrote:

> The patch introducing this left out x86-64, despite it also having 
> extra entries.

thanks, applied. Is there any 2.6.24 urgency for this?

	Ingo

Re: [PATCH] x86-64: also define AT_VECTOR_SIZE_ARCH

[Jan Beulich]

>>> Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> 17.12.07 14:42 >>>
>
>* Jan Beulich <jbeulich@novell.com> wrote:
>
>> The patch introducing this left out x86-64, despite it also having 
>> extra entries.
>
>thanks, applied. Is there any 2.6.24 urgency for this?

While I haven't seen x86-64 to break due to this (it appears that 32-bit
apps would be more susceptible), I know that we had major problems
with the respective piece missing from the 32-bit Xen kernels in openSuSE
10.3, so I would strongly suggest putting this into .24.

Jan

Re: [PATCH] x86-64: also define AT_VECTOR_SIZE_ARCH

[Ingo Molnar]

* Jan Beulich <jbeulich@novell.com> wrote:

> >>> Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> 17.12.07 14:42 >>>
> >
> >* Jan Beulich <jbeulich@novell.com> wrote:
> >
> >> The patch introducing this left out x86-64, despite it also having 
> >> extra entries.
> >
> >thanks, applied. Is there any 2.6.24 urgency for this?
> 
> While I haven't seen x86-64 to break due to this (it appears that 
> 32-bit apps would be more susceptible), I know that we had major 
> problems with the respective piece missing from the 32-bit Xen kernels 
> in openSuSE 10.3, so I would strongly suggest putting this into .24.

ok, queued it up for the next push.

	Ingo