> Did I send the right patch? The one I meant to send (appended below),
> indeed builds and runs without utrace-regset.patch and
> utrace-core.patch applied. It's utrace-1 in the following:
That is not the same patch I tried before. This one does apply and build
fine (after make defconfig ARCH=
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
-
replay
-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techs
[ 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
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 12:01:59AM -0800, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > Below is a tracehook patch for UML which goes right after
> > utrace-utrace-tracehook.patch.
>
> It does not. That patch has regset and ptrace stuff in it. It indeed
> applies fine before or after utrace patches. But it doesn't
