Re: [BK-2.5] Move "used FPU status" into new non-atomic thread_info->status field.

• Next message: Helge Hafting: "Re: [RFC] Improved inode number allocation for HTree"
• Previous message: Paul Jakma: "Re: [PATCH] make f_pos accessible via /proc/PID/fd/N"
• In reply to: Linus Torvalds: "Re: [BK-2.5] Move "used FPU status" into new non-atomic thread_info->status field."
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Linus Torvalds writes:
> > Sorry for being dense, but can you clarify: will current 2.{2,4,5}
> > kernels preserve or destroy the parent process' FPU control at fork()?
>
> They're guaranteed to preserve the control state (it has to: you can't
> just change the exception mask over a function call). However, that was
> buggy at least in 2.5.x, and very possibly in 2.4.x too - haven't checked.

Thanks. Our use of unmasked FPU exceptions should be safe then, unless
2.4 also has the bug you fixed in 2.5.

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

• Next message: Helge Hafting: "Re: [RFC] Improved inode number allocation for HTree"
• Previous message: Paul Jakma: "Re: [PATCH] make f_pos accessible via /proc/PID/fd/N"
• In reply to: Linus Torvalds: "Re: [BK-2.5] Move "used FPU status" into new non-atomic thread_info->status field."
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Mar 15 2003 - 22:00:25 EST