[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081005093523.GE16819@elte.hu>
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 11:35:23 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@...tmail.fm>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dumpstack: x86: various small unification steps
* Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@...tmail.fm> wrote:
> Hi Ingo,
>
> Here is the first round of unification of dumpstack_32.c
> and dumpstack_64.c. The first patch can also be seen as
> a clean-up of the traps.c-unification as I forgot to move
> one function at the time. Anyhow, the series depends on
> the traps unification.
great - i've created tip/x86/dumpstack for this and applied your patches
there. (that branch embedds tip/x86/core which already embedds
tip/x86/traps)
> B.T.W., I could reproduce the spontaneous reboot with the
> traps unification with glibc. The change GATE_INTERRUPT ->
> GATE_TRAP fixed the crash there. Usually I test only with
> a small klibc-based userspace, and there the reboot does
> not happen. I guess the int 0x80 interface is less picky.
> (Just to say that I do test the changes a bit ;) )
it also passed -tip testing still then so the changes are fine.
Generally if you see your commits show up and stay in tip/master it
means they get tested with a newly built random kernel about once every
two minutes or so.
regarding klibc, that's interesting: is that the in-kernel klibc from
hpa? Which tree are you using to pull that into tip/master? (unless i
misunderstood what you are doing)
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists