lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Apr]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/2] (Was: syscall_regfunc() && TIF_SYSCALL_TRACEPOINT)
    Should I resend this or we do not really care?

    The problem is minor, but both patches look like the simple
    and obvious bugfix to me.

    On 04/01, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
    >
    > On 03/31, Steven Rostedt wrote:
    > >
    > > On Sat, 2012-03-31 at 22:45 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
    > > >
    > > > So what do you think we should do,
    > > >
    > > > - keep this check
    > > >
    > > > - remove it
    > > >
    > > > - remove it in a separate patch
    > >
    > > I say this one (remove it in a separate patch). That way if something
    > > breaks we know exactly what did it ;-)
    >
    > OK, agreed.
    >
    > Don't really know how can I test this... but the kernel didn't
    > crash after I enabled the syscall tracer ;)
    >
    > Oleg.



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2012-04-20 23:29    [W:0.023 / U:60.800 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site