Hi, On Wednesday 28 November 2007, Roland McGrath wrote in "Re: "hwcap 0 nosegneg" doesnt work with paravirt_ops xen as of 2.6.23.9": > > > /etc/ld.so.conf.d/xen.conf: > > > hwcap 0 nosegneg > > > > This looks OK. [...] > > No, it does not match this: > /* Bit used for the pseudo-hwcap for non-negative segments. We use > bit 1 to avoid bugs in some versions of glibc when bit 0 is > used; the choice is otherwise arbitrary. */ > #define VDSO_NOTE_NONEGSEG_BIT 1 > You really want "hwcap 1 nosegneg" given that. > Yes, we've been over this several times already. Thanks for the information. I guess it would be nice to document this somewhere (except in code)... At least I could not find any information about it beside some patch (Not directed at you, Roland). Any idea where? Besides, it has one Problem: It is not backwards compatible. Using it on earlier Xen Versions yields the normal tls versions (xen 3.1). Isnt the userbase of existing xen installations bigger than the one of some point in FC5 test releases? Ugh. Leaning a bit far out of the door with that one considering my knowledge about it... Sorry about that. Greetings, Andres
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
- References:
- "hwcap 0 nosegneg" doesnt work with paravirt_ops xen as of 2.6.23.9
- From: Andres Freund <[email protected]>
- Re: "hwcap 0 nosegneg" doesnt work with paravirt_ops xen as of 2.6.23.9
- From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[email protected]>
- Re: "hwcap 0 nosegneg" doesnt work with paravirt_ops xen as of 2.6.23.9
- From: Roland McGrath <[email protected]>
- "hwcap 0 nosegneg" doesnt work with paravirt_ops xen as of 2.6.23.9
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 20/27] ptrace: arch_has_block_step
- Next by Date: Re: named + capset = EPERM [Was: 2.6.24-rc3-mm2]
- Previous by thread: Re: "hwcap 0 nosegneg" doesnt work with paravirt_ops xen as of 2.6.23.9
- Next by thread: ata4294967295: failed to start port (errno=-19)
- Index(es):
 |