On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 04:00:31PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> That's because it doesn't apply at all to the current 2.6.20.3 kernel
> tree. Can you rediff it for that one so that we can apply it properly?
My apologies - that depended on a previous patch which I thought had
made it into -stable. Bel
On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 12:10:15PM -0400, Jeff Dike wrote:
> [ This missed getting into -stable the first time I sent it ]
That's because it doesn't apply at all to the current 2.6.20.3 kernel
tree. Can you rediff it for that one so that we can apply it properly?
thanks,
greg k-h
-
To unsubscri
[ This missed getting into -stable the first time I sent it ]
In my previous x86_64 thread fix, I forgot to initialize
thread.arch.fs in arch_prctl. A process calling arch_prctl to set %fs
would lose it on the next context switch.
It also turns out that you can switch to a process which is in th
[ Andrew, this is definite 2.6.21 material ]
In my previous x86_64 thread fix, I forgot to initialize
thread.arch.fs in arch_prctl. A process calling arch_prctl to set %fs
would lose it on the next context switch.
It also turns out that you can switch to a process which is in the
process of exit
4 matches
Mail list logo
