On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 11:52:01AM +, James Hogan wrote:
> Reviewed-by: James Hogan
>
> I also see this issue with metag when I try and select
> CONFIG_GENERIC_SIGALTSTACK. Until asm-generic/syscalls.h goes away it
> seems a shame to have to keep a misleading #define sys_sigaltstack
> sys_si
On 21/12/12 06:24, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> On Friday 21 December 2012 05:51 AM, Al Viro wrote:
>> sigaltstack infrastructure + conversion for x86, alpha and um,
>> COMPAT_SYSCALL_DEFINE infrastructure. Note that there are several
>> conflicts between "unify SS_ONSTACK/SS_DISABLE definitions" and
>>
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 11:54:08AM +0530, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> On Friday 21 December 2012 05:51 AM, Al Viro wrote:
> > sigaltstack infrastructure + conversion for x86, alpha and um,
> > COMPAT_SYSCALL_DEFINE infrastructure. Note that there are several
> > conflicts between "unify SS_ONSTACK/SS_DI
On Friday 21 December 2012 05:51 AM, Al Viro wrote:
> sigaltstack infrastructure + conversion for x86, alpha and um,
> COMPAT_SYSCALL_DEFINE infrastructure. Note that there are several
> conflicts between "unify SS_ONSTACK/SS_DISABLE definitions" and
> UAPI patches in mainline; resolution is trivi
sigaltstack infrastructure + conversion for x86, alpha and um,
COMPAT_SYSCALL_DEFINE infrastructure. Note that there are several
conflicts between "unify SS_ONSTACK/SS_DISABLE definitions" and
UAPI patches in mainline; resolution is trivial - just remove definitions
of SS_ONSTACK and SS_DISABLED f
On Fri, 2012-10-12 at 02:09 +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> Anyway, if ppc folks can live with that stuff in its current form for now,
> here's the second signal.git pull request. Stuff in there: kernel_thread/
> kernel_execve/sys_execve conversions for several more architectures plus
> assorted signal fi
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 02:09:58AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
>
> How granular are you planning to make that? I mean, we are talking about
> 3 objects here - init/main.o, kernel/kthread.o and kernel/kmod.o. Do they
> get TOC separate from that of arch/powerpc/kernel/entry_64.o?
Potentially, yes, it
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 11:16:33AM +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 01:53:06PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
>
> > Umm... Maybe, but let's do that as subsequent cleanup. Again,
> > we almost certainly don't need to mess with TOC at all - the callbacks
> > are in the main kernel
8 matches
Mail list logo
