From: Chuck Ebbert
> David Laight wrote:
>
> > From: Aaron Tomlin
> > > Currently in the event of a stack overrun a call to schedule()
> > > does not check for this type of corruption. This corruption is
> > > often silent and can go unnoticed. However once the corrupted
> > > region is examined
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 04:02:45PM +, David Laight wrote:
> From: Aaron Tomlin
> > Currently in the event of a stack overrun a call to schedule()
> > does not check for this type of corruption. This corruption is
> > often silent and can go unnoticed. However once the corrupted
> > region is ex
On Thu, 11 Sep 2014 16:02:45 +
David Laight wrote:
> From: Aaron Tomlin
> > Currently in the event of a stack overrun a call to schedule()
> > does not check for this type of corruption. This corruption is
> > often silent and can go unnoticed. However once the corrupted
> > region is examine
From: Aaron Tomlin
> Currently in the event of a stack overrun a call to schedule()
> does not check for this type of corruption. This corruption is
> often silent and can go unnoticed. However once the corrupted
> region is examined at a later stage, the outcome is undefined
> and often results in
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 05:53:03PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> What's with the threading all versions together? Please don't do that --
> also don't post a new version just for this though.
Sorry about that. Noted.
--
Aaron Tomlin
___
Linuxppc-de
What's with the threading all versions together? Please don't do that --
also don't post a new version just for this though.
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
