Re: [PATCH v5 3.1.0-rc4-tip 13/26] x86: define a x86 specificexception notifier.

[Srikar Dronamraju]

* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2011-09-26 16:19:51]:

> On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 17:32 +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > @@ -820,6 +821,19 @@ do_notify_resume(struct pt_regs *regs, void *unused, __u32 thread_info_flags)
> >                 mce_notify_process();
> >  #endif /* CONFIG_X86_64 && CONFIG_X86_MCE */
> >  
> > +       if (thread_info_flags & _TIF_UPROBE) {
> > +               clear_thread_flag(TIF_UPROBE);
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_32
> > +               /*
> > +                * On x86_32, do_notify_resume() gets called with
> > +                * interrupts disabled. Hence enable interrupts if they
> > +                * are still disabled.
> > +                */
> > +               local_irq_enable();
> > +#endif
> > +               uprobe_notify_resume(regs);
> > +       }
> > +
> >         /* deal with pending signal delivery */
> >         if (thread_info_flags & _TIF_SIGPENDING)
> >                 do_signal(regs); 
> 
> It would be good to remove this difference between i386 and x86_64.


I think, we have already discussed this. I tried getting to know why we
have this difference in behaviour. However I havent been able to find
the answer.

If you can get somebody to answer this, I would be happy to modify as
required.

-- 
Thanks and Regards
Srikar
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/