Linus Torvalds wrote:
Actually, you should just remove it entirely, since the LEAVE will do the
right thing (which is why it worked AT ALL originally
That answers the big question in my mind...why it worked originally.
--
/\
Jens Owen/ \/\ _
On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Brian Paul wrote:
>
> Josh Vanderhoof informed me that 16, not 32, should be added to ESP at the end
> of that routine. I've checked in this change.
Actually, you should just remove it entirely, since the LEAVE will do the
right thing (which is why it worked AT ALL original
Brian Paul wrote:
Linus Torvalds wrote:
Ok, I'm a bit bitter, because I just spent a long time chasing down a
kernel bug that didn't turn out to be a kernel bug at all.
I started seeing that strange SIGSEGV with programs that use dri, and it
happened right after the SIGFPE that tested for XMM
Linus Torvalds wrote:
Ok,
I'm a bit bitter, because I just spent a long time chasing down a kernel
bug that didn't turn out to be a kernel bug at all.
I started seeing that strange SIGSEGV with programs that use dri, and it
happened right after the SIGFPE that tested for XMM support. As it
hap
Am Mittwoch, 8. Januar 2003 22:27 schrieb Linus Torvalds:
> Grr. Double-grr. That assembly-language is written in some unreadable
> syntax anyway, but here's a totally untested diff that may fix the crap by
> de-allocating the stack only after we're actually _done_ with it.
>
> I was too lazy to c
Ok,
I'm a bit bitter, because I just spent a long time chasing down a kernel
bug that didn't turn out to be a kernel bug at all.
I started seeing that strange SIGSEGV with programs that use dri, and it
happened right after the SIGFPE that tested for XMM support. As it
happens, I've done some s
