On Thu, 6 Sep 2012, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > actually commit 7256a5d2da56 seems to contain the correct PER_LINUX
> > handling, so seems like you picked the right one :)
> >
>
> Odd, they looked different around the use of PER_MASK when I looked but
The original patch had
pers
On Wed, 2012-09-05 at 10:56 +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> Hi Benjamin,
>
> actually commit 7256a5d2da56 seems to contain the correct PER_LINUX
> handling, so seems like you picked the right one :)
>
Odd, they looked different around the use of PER_MASK when I looked but
I was tired & jet lagged,
On Wed, 5 Sep 2012, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > Directly comparing current->personality against PER_LINUX32 doesn't work
> > in cases when any of the personality flags stored in the top three bytes
> > are used.
> >
> > Directly forcefully setting personality to PER_LINUX32 or PER_LINUX
> >
On Thu, 2012-08-02 at 09:10 +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> Directly comparing current->personality against PER_LINUX32 doesn't work
> in cases when any of the personality flags stored in the top three bytes
> are used.
>
> Directly forcefully setting personality to PER_LINUX32 or PER_LINUX
> discards
Directly comparing current->personality against PER_LINUX32 doesn't work
in cases when any of the personality flags stored in the top three bytes
are used.
Directly forcefully setting personality to PER_LINUX32 or PER_LINUX
discards any flags stored in the top three bytes
Use personality() macro
