Sorry... I confused them too. It's TS_COMPAT which is problematic.
--
Sent from my mobile phone. Please pardon any lack of formatting.
Stephen Wilson wrote:
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 08:38:09AM -0800, Andi Kleen wrote: > On Thu, Mar 10,
2011 at 08:00:32AM -0800, Andi Kleen wrote: > > On Tue, Mar
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 11:54:14AM -0500, Stephen Wilson wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 08:38:09AM -0800, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 08:00:32AM -0800, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 07:31:56PM -0500, Stephen Wilson wrote:
> > > > The only architecture this c
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 08:38:09AM -0800, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 08:00:32AM -0800, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 07:31:56PM -0500, Stephen Wilson wrote:
> > > The only architecture this change impacts in any significant way is
> > > x86_64.
> > > The principle
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 08:00:32AM -0800, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 07:31:56PM -0500, Stephen Wilson wrote:
> >
> > Morally, the question of whether an address lies in a gate vma should be
> > asked
> > with respect to an mm, not a particular task.
> >
> > Practically, dropping
