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

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Mon, 2011-09-26 at 21:22 +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> * 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.

The Changelog failed to mention this. Afaict there really is no reason
other than that touching entry_32.S is a pain.
--
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/