On Jun 24, 2008, at 5:57 AM, Michael Neuling wrote:
If we set the SPE MSR bit in save_user_regs we can blow away the VEC
bit. This doesn't matter in reality as they are infact the same bit
but looks bad.
Also, when we add VSX in a later patch, we need to be able to set two
separate MSR bits h
On Jun 23, 2008, at 2:38 AM, Michael Neuling wrote:
If we set the SPE MSR bit in save_user_regs we can blow away the VEC
bit. This will never happen in reality (VMX and SPE will never be in
the same processor as their opcodes overlap), but it looks bad. Also
when we add VSX here in a later pa
On Jun 19, 2008, at 11:13 PM, Michael Neuling wrote:
If we set the SPE MSR bit in save_user_regs we can blow away the VEC
bit. This will never happen in reality (VMX and SPE will never be in
the same processor as their opcodes overlap), but it looks bad. Also
when we add VSX here in a later p
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>
> On Jun 17, 2008, at 7:47 PM, Michael Neuling wrote:
>
> > If we set the SPE MSR bit in save_user_regs we can blow away the VEC
> > bit. This will never happen in reality, but it looks bad.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Michael Neuling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
On Jun 17, 2008, at 7:47 PM, Michael Neuling wrote:
If we set the SPE MSR bit in save_user_regs we can blow away the VEC
bit. This will never happen in reality, but it looks bad.
Signed-off-by: Michael Neuling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
arch/powerpc/kernel/signal_32.c | 10 ++
1 file c
