"Richard B. Johnson" wrote:
> > I think patch like this is not safe for 2.4.X-pre.
> Not safe only in that there is sooooo much stuff changed all at once
> that it'd be a good idea not to change anything that doesn't have to
> be changed. I agree.
Actually there are no so many changes. I removed very deep macro
definitions of memset and memcpy which confused gcc-2.95.2. They
didn't confused gcc-18.104.22.168, but anyway kernel crashed.
The code now is separated in two routines - one for the generic
case and one for the constant case. Which simplifies reading and
reduces code lines.
The other change is making memcmp alias to __builtin_memcmp which
i took from string.h and obviously works.
> > However, in 2.5.0 we should apply it, and force it on *all* cpus just
> > to test it well. Then in 2.5.10 we should turn it off for
> > pentium/MMX+.
> > Pavel
> Once 2.4 is released, has its usual bug-fixes, becomes reliable, then
> Petko can send his diff. That way, new problems won't be thought to
> be a result of his patch. That us a good idea.
Kernel compiled with 486 string routines works fine for me. No crashes
no oopses. The only problem i noticed so far is immediate silent reboot
when i try to load module(s). The lack of any register dump or sysloged
info make bug detection harder.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 07 2000 - 21:00:17 EST