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    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site