[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.01.0905120732580.3586@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 07:36:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Robin Holt <holt@....com>
cc: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
systemtap@...rces.redhat.com,
Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Jan Blunck <jblunck@...e.de>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -rc] [BUGFIX] x86: fix kernel_trap_sp()
On Tue, 12 May 2009, Robin Holt wrote:
> > */
> > -static inline unsigned long kernel_trap_sp(struct pt_regs *regs)
> > +static inline unsigned long kernel_stack_pointer(struct pt_regs *regs)
>
> Why not have it return an unsigned long *?
I considered it, but since part of the point of the patch was to make it
look like the mirror of "user_stack_pointer()", returning "unsigned long"
looked more appropriate.
But I have no really strong opinions. I wouldn't object to making it
return "unsigned long *" either.
Linus
--
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