RE: RE: s390 lsbsi diffs

> Yup.  We added these to the "lsb patch set" (they
> moved around due to a glibc bug that we filed).
> Since they weren't in the IBM patchset, when I
> diffed the two, I let it be deleted when I built
> the patch I sent you.  Easy enough to put back.

Let me see if we are on the same page. The patch file that I got had the
entry in it to delete the SHMLBA function definition from shm.h I now
realize that I copied a bad copy of the patch entries on my previous
append. On my previous note I had +s on the lines but the patch I got from
you had -s. I couldn't change the deletions to additions since my shm.h has
the patch already applied. My action was to take it out from the s390.patch
file.

The original s390.patch file had:

    diff -Naurw glibc-2.2.5/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/s390/bits/shm.h
    glibc-2.2.5.s390/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/s390/bits/shm.h
    --- glibc-2.2.5/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/s390/bits/shm.h 2003-04-30
    09:51:27.000000000 -0600
    +++ glibc-2.2.5.s390/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/s390/bits/shm.h
    2003-04-30 09:43:33.000000000 -0600
    @@ -36,10 +36,6 @@
     #define SHM_LOCK   11          /* lock segment (root only) */
     #define SHM_UNLOCK 12          /* unlock segment (root only) */

    -/* Segment low boundary address multiple.  */
    -#define SHMLBA           (__getpagesize ())
    -extern int __getpagesize (void) __THROW __attribute__ ((__const__));
    -

     /* Type to count number of attaches.  */
     typedef unsigned long int shmatt_t;

Now it doesn't.

Regards,
Eliuth