Hi,
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005, Al Viro wrote:
> OK, fuck that. Consider the patchbomb withdrawn.
Thanks.
Nobody is going to die that m68k doesn't compile again for another
release. I appreciate the kick to get it going, but there is no point in
forcing it a few days before the release, which basica
Hi,
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005, Al Viro wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > - *ti = *orig->thread_info;
> > > > > *tsk = *orig;
> > > > > + setup_thread_info(tsk, ti);
> > > > > tsk->thread_info = ti;
> > > > > ti->task = tsk;
> > > >
> > > > This introduces a subtle ordering require
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 04:15:39PM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 25 Aug 2005, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
> > Yup. Let's get m68k into buildable shape for 2.6.13 with Al's minimal
> > patches, and if you have further improvements over that submit them as
> > split up patches throug
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005, Roman Zippel wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Aug 2005, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > Yup. Let's get m68k into buildable shape for 2.6.13 with Al's minimal
> > patches, and if you have further improvements over that submit them as
> > split up patches through the usual channels. Having all
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 04:10:38PM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 25 Aug 2005, Al Viro wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 11:15:24AM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > - *ti = *orig->thread_info;
> > > > *tsk = *orig;
> > > > + setup_thread_info(tsk,
Hi,
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Yup. Let's get m68k into buildable shape for 2.6.13 with Al's minimal
> patches, and if you have further improvements over that submit them as
> split up patches through the usual channels. Having all architectures
> actually build and work fr
Hi,
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005, Al Viro wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 11:15:24AM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
> > >
> > > - *ti = *orig->thread_info;
> > > *tsk = *orig;
> > > + setup_thread_info(tsk, ti);
> > > tsk->thread_info = ti;
> > > ti->task = tsk;
> >
> > This introduces a subtle orde
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 02:07:38PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> Fine, as long as that merge is done before your s/thread_info/stack/ patches.
> It should be the first step before doing 200Kb worth of cosmetical stuff
> that affects every architecture out there, not something that depends on
> it done.
>
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 10:41:27AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> >
> > +static inline void setup_thread_info(struct task_struct *p, struct
> > thread_info *ti)
> ^
> const struct task_struct *p?
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 11:15:24AM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
> >
> > - *ti = *orig->thread_info;
> > *tsk = *orig;
> > + setup_thread_info(tsk, ti);
> > tsk->thread_info = ti;
> > ti->task = tsk;
>
> This introduces a subtle ordering requirement, where setup_thread_info
> magic
Hi,
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005, Al Viro wrote:
>
> +static inline void setup_thread_info(struct task_struct *p, struct
> thread_info *ti)
> +{
> + *ti = *p->thread_info;
> +}
> +
>
> - *ti = *orig->thread_info;
> *tsk = *orig;
> + setup_thread_info(tsk, ti);
> tsk->thread_in
Thanks a lot, Al!
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005, Al Viro wrote:
> encapsulates the rest of arch-dependent operations with thread_info access.
> Two new helpers - setup_thread_info() and end_of_stack(). For normal
> case the former consists of copying thread_info of parent to new thread_info
> and the latt
12 matches
Mail list logo
