linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: kernel 2.6.9 patch

To: Tatsuya Koseki <koseki@shimafuji.co.jp>
Subject: Re: kernel 2.6.9 patch
From: Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 14:17:53 +0100
Cc: Linux MIPS mailing list <linux-mips@linux-mips.org>
In-reply-to: <009001c4e1ba$54a431f0$2100a8c0@koseki>
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <009001c4e1ba$54a431f0$2100a8c0@koseki>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
User-agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 05:53:02PM +0900, Tatsuya Koseki wrote:

> Subject: kernel 2.6.9 patch
> Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 17:53:02 +0900
> Content-Type: text/plain;
>       charset="iso-2022-jp"
> 
> Please review 
> 
> 
> --- linux/include/asm/stackframe.h.old Tue Dec 14 17:49:38 2004
> +++ linux/include/asm/stackframe.h Tue Dec 14 17:50:35 2004
> @@ -244,6 +244,10 @@
>    nor v1, $0, v1
>    and v0, v1
>    or v0, a0
> +
> +  li v1,2
> +  or v0,v1
> +
>    mtc0 v0, CP0_STATUS
>    LONG_L v1, PT_EPC(sp)
>    MTC0 v1, CP0_EPC

 o Your patch got corrupted by using a differnet indentation so couldn't be
   applied anyway
 o When posting a patch, post an explanation.  If the purpose of a patch
   isn't obvious it'll likely be ignroed.
 o This bug was already fixed in CVS.
 o The issue only affected new-born processes, so there is no reason to
   burden the fix on every exception taken.
 o Why using two instruction if one would be sufficient.

  Ralf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>