On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 11:55:21 -0700 (PDT), Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Wouldn't this simpler patch result in exactly the same behaviour?
I thought the extra code would be good documentation, but the comments
work just as well. This is a little clearer (hand edited patch:)
--- a/arch/i386/kernel/tra
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
>
> i386 floating-point exception handling has a bug that can cause error
> code 0 to be sent instead of the proper code during signal delivery.
Looking at your patch, I think it's too complicated.
The fact is, none of the "switch()" cases even _care_ ab
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 02:20:07 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> every reviewer has to look up all the bits in the manual?
I fixed the test program too:
Before patch:
$ ./fpsig
handler: signum = 8, errno = 0, code = 0 [unknown]
handler: fpu cwd = 0xb40, fpu swd = 0xbaa0
handler: i387 unmasked precisio
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 02:20:07 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> How about you describe what you actually changed and why so that not
> every reviewer has to look up all the bits in the manual?
The patch had a bug anyway, so here's another try. *** Replace
the previous patch with this one. ***
i386
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 19:43:57 -0400
Chuck Ebbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This patch fixes a problem with incorrect floating-point exception
> signal delivery on i386 kernels. In some cases, an error code of zero
> is delivered instead of the correct code, as the output from my test
> progra
This patch fixes a problem with incorrect floating-point exception
signal delivery on i386 kernels. In some cases, an error code of zero
is delivered instead of the correct code, as the output from my test
program shows:
Before patch:
$ ./fpsig
handler: signum = 8, errno = 0, code = 0
handler
6 matches
Mail list logo
