[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100216140126.GA16448@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 15:01:26 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 0/3] Was: x86: get rid of the insane TIF_ABI_PENDING bit
On 02/16, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 11:19:03AM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > Agreed, but otoh it is always good to understand the code. If we
> > really have a reason for TS_COMPAT, a small comment can help other
> > readers.
>
> My memory is somewhat fuzzy on this one, but I think it was related
> to VMA placement (probably for stack randomization or something like that)
> This happens before the first call. I might be wrong on that.
Afaics we never check TS_COMPAT/is_compat_task for this...
> There might also have been other is_compat_task checks in the exec init
> path, so partly it was defensive programming.
Understand, but it looks so confusing...
OK. Please feel free to ignore, but I am sending the trivial, but only
compile-tested patches. My main motivation is to simplify the reading
and understanding of this code.
The first patch looks like an "obvious" bugfix for 2.6.33 though, but
still untested.
Oleg.
--
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