On Tue, 2012-09-04 at 16:51 +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote: > My guess would be we're calling that quite early and the __put_user() > check is getting confused and failing. That means we'll have left some > code unpatched, which then fails. > > Can you try with the patch applied, but instead of returning if the > __put_user() fails, just continue on anyway. > > That will isolate if it's something in the __put_user() (I doubt it), or > just that the __put_user() is failing and leaving the code unpatched.
As a test case, continuing on error is fine, but I would not recommend that as a fix. If it fails, but still does the patch, that could be harmful, and confusing of a result. Need to figure out why put_user is failing. -- Steve _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
