Bug 6791 - Add PROT_SAO define to mman.h to support Strong Access Ordering
Summary: Add PROT_SAO define to mman.h to support Strong Access Ordering
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: glibc
Classification: Unclassified
Component: libc (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
: P2 enhancement
Target Milestone: 2.9
Assignee: Ulrich Drepper
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2008-07-30 22:47 UTC by Pete Eberlein
Modified: 2014-07-04 05:45 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Host: powerpc64-linux
Target: powerpc64-linux
Build:
Last reconfirmed:
fweimer: security-


Attachments
Patch to add PROT_SAO to mman.h (440 bytes, patch)
2008-07-30 22:56 UTC, Pete Eberlein
Details | Diff

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Pete Eberlein 2008-07-30 22:47:42 UTC
This enhancement request is to add the define for PROT_SAO to powerpc/mman.h to
match the latest changes in the Linux kernel.  This define enables a new
hardware feature on Power7 to be used by applications to specify pages in a
process's address space that exhibit a stronger memory consistency model, Strong
Access Ordering.

The justification for the kernel change is in this changeset:

http://git.kernel.org/gitweb.cgi?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/
linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=ef3d3246a0d06be622867d21af25f997aeeb105f

The change to powerpc/mman.h is
 here:
http://git.kernel.org/gitweb.cgi?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/
linux-2.
6.git;a=commitdiff;h=aba46c5027cb59d98052231b36efcbbde9c77a1d;hp=b845f313d78e4e259ec449909e3bbadf77b53a6d

This patch will create the PROT_SAO define in
libc/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/powerpc/bits/mman.h to match the linux kernel
header in powerpc/mman.h.
Comment 1 Pete Eberlein 2008-07-30 22:56:08 UTC
Created attachment 2841 [details]
Patch to add PROT_SAO to mman.h

Attached patch.
Comment 2 Pete Eberlein 2008-07-31 23:12:16 UTC
link to the message on libc-alpha where this is submitted:

http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2008-07/msg00040.html
Comment 3 Ulrich Drepper 2008-08-08 05:14:14 UTC
- there is no reason to not sort the value numerically
- the comments all end with a period
- you didn't update the copyright year

I fixed all this up myself.