From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx1-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.11] helo=sc8-sf-mx1.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1Bj1TK-00083e-Bv for user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 09 Jul 2004 12:55:50 -0700 Received: from www.tuxrocks.com ([64.62.190.123] helo=tuxrocks.com) by sc8-sf-mx1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.34) id 1Bj1TK-0000k7-4S for user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 09 Jul 2004 12:55:50 -0700 Received: from tuxrocks.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by tuxrocks.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i69JtnVe020036 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 2004 13:55:49 -0600 Received: from localhost (frank@localhost) by tuxrocks.com (8.12.10/8.12.8/Submit) with ESMTP id i69Jtn8F020033 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 2004 13:55:49 -0600 From: Frank Sorenson Subject: Re: [uml-user] Re: [uml-devel] Fixing the 2.4 bugs - patches against 2.4.24-1um In-Reply-To: <200407081832.39138.blaisorblade_spam@yahoo.it> Message-ID: References: <200407012050.14867.blaisorblade_spam@yahoo.it> <200407081832.39138.blaisorblade_spam@yahoo.it> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: user-mode-linux-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: user-mode-linux-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: The user-mode Linux development list List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2004 13:55:48 -0600 (MDT) To: user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net On Thu, 8 Jul 2004, BlaisorBlade wrote: > Yes, you are right. Compliments for that - I would have never seen such a > panic (I understand you perfectly, but I missed it and would have missed it > again). So thanks a lot for helping with it - I'll save that for when I'm > back (I'm leaving now, so have no time at all to do anything). Your catch also > means that UML will break without -DUM_FASTCALL, which is not nice: the buggy > change you see has actually uncovered some other bug; if it weren't so, the > bug you have fixed would only have hurted performance. Correct. I've verified that UML does break without -DUM_FASTCALL, even on the 'stable' 2.4.24-1um patch, so the problem was probably introduced at some point earlier. Does anyone know the history behind UM_FASTCALL, its' effects, and when related modifications occurred? Frank --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Frank Sorenson - KD7TZK Systems Manager, Computer Science Department Brigham Young University frank@tuxrocks.com ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by Black Hat Briefings & Training. Attend Black Hat Briefings & Training, Las Vegas July 24-29 - digital self defense, top technical experts, no vendor pitches, unmatched networking opportunities. Visit www.blackhat.com _______________________________________________ User-mode-linux-devel mailing list User-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-devel