On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 12:51:41PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 17 May 2016 09:31:12 -0700
> Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> > Considering that we got this wrong in two places, it's clearly too
> > subtle for our little brains as-is.
>
> And did we only get this wrong in two places? That is,
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 9:51 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> And did we only get this wrong in two places? That is, do we really
> know how little our brains really are?
Doing some grepping seems to imply that was it.
There's a fair number of cases in
arch/x86/crypto/aesni-intel_asm.S
but th
On Tue, 17 May 2016 09:31:12 -0700
Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Considering that we got this wrong in two places, it's clearly too
> subtle for our little brains as-is.
And did we only get this wrong in two places? That is, do we really
know how little our brains really are?
-- Steve
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 7:43 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>
> index 98df1fa..dae7ca0 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/entry/thunk_64.S
> +++ b/arch/x86/entry/thunk_64.S
> @@ -15,9 +15,10 @@
> .globl \name
> .type \name, @function
> \name:
> + /* push 1 register if frame pointers are ena
mp;& !ARM_UNWIND && !S390 &&
> !MICROBLAZE && !ARC && !SCORE
>
> Also, unlike the efi_call() case, this thunk_64.S bug affects the quality of
> debug/tracing information, not runtime correctness per se.
>
> still all that is by accident, n
5 matches
Mail list logo
