[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <D167BDC0-BB1A-41B8-A59D-DD60FFA027CE@googlemail.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 18:40:00 +0200
From: Mathias Krause <minipli@...glemail.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...era.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Chris Zankel <chris@...kel.net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...nel.org,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] init: use KERNEL_DS when trying to start init process
On 09.06.2011, 17:56 Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 5:06 AM, Mathias Krause <minipli@...glemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> ...Albeit by looking closer at the implementation of flush_old_exec()
>> I think we should just move the set_fs() call there and remove it from
>> the architecture dependent implementations of flush_thread() and
>> start_thread().
>
> Yeah, that sounds like the sane (and safe - it won't matter if there
> are some architectures that get overlooked and then have a duplicate
> set_fs() somewhere) approach.
So the only question left: Should it be one patch moving the set_fs() call to
flush_old_exec() and also removing the redundant calls in flush_thread() and
start_thread() or should that be split into one for the set_fs() move and
multiple ones for the arch specific set_fs() remove?
Mathias--
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