linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Fix the multithread program core thread message error

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 01 Jul 2009 14:19:49 -0500
From:	Bill Gatliff <bgat@...lgatliff.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	Hui Zhu <teawater@...il.com>, xiyou.wangcong@...il.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
	dhowells@...hat.com, Russell King <rmk@....linux.org.uk>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.arm.linux.org.uk, stable@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix the multithread program core thread message error

Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> I'd have though that having gdb produce crap for all the threads would
> be fairly irritating to ARM developers and hence we should backport
> this.  But perhaps it doens't affect many people, dunno.
>
> What do poeple think?
>   

Not backporting would provide an incentive for people to step up to a
more modern kernel.  :)

One can always backport later if the situation really requires it.  I
say let it be.


b.g.

-- 
Bill Gatliff
bgat@...lgatliff.com


--
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/