From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: dann frazier Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 22:38:15 +0000 Subject: Re: Important NaT-bit bug fix Message-Id: <20040227223815.GL23315@ldl.fc.hp.com> List-Id: References: <16445.8557.274484.443935@napali.hpl.hp.com> In-Reply-To: <16445.8557.274484.443935@napali.hpl.hp.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 01:29:48PM -0800, David Mosberger wrote: > Yes, that's exactly what I meant. Of course, I'd still advise to > double-check by running the test program. I was talking to David privately, and he pointed out that either 2.4 patch (the one willy posted, or the one david posted) applied to a kernel w/o the streamlined syscall path patch will allow his test to succeed. >From David: "Actually, now that I think about it, the test is fine. Using the patch that works with a stream-lined syscall-path patch also will work with an unpatched kernel (just a bit slower than strictly necessary). It's the reverse that wouldn't work, but that's not a case that you tested." At what point did the streamlined syscall path go into a 2.4-ia64 release? -- --------------------------- dann frazier Hewlett-Packard Linux and Open Source Lab dannf@hp.com (970) 898-0800