From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965253AbXAKAk4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Jan 2007 19:40:56 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965261AbXAKAk4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Jan 2007 19:40:56 -0500 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:37486 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965253AbXAKAk4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Jan 2007 19:40:56 -0500 From: Andi Kleen To: Neil Brown Subject: Re: PATCH - x86-64 signed-compare bug, was Re: select() setting ERESTARTNOHAND (514). Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 01:40:51 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5 Cc: Sean Reifschneider , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20070110234238.GB10791@tummy.com> <17829.34481.340913.519675@notabene.brown> In-Reply-To: <17829.34481.340913.519675@notabene.brown> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200701110140.51842.ak@suse.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thursday 11 January 2007 01:37, Neil Brown wrote: > On Wednesday January 10, jafo@tummy.com wrote: > > > > In looking at the Linux code for ERESTARTNOHAND, I see that > > include/linux/errno.h says this errno should never make it to the user. > > However, in this instance we ARE seeing it. Looking around on google shows > > others are seeing it as well, though hits are few. > .. > > > > Thoughts? > > Just a 'me too' at this point. > The X server on my shiny new notebook (Core 2 Duo) occasionally dies > with 'select' repeatedly returning ERESTARTNOHAND. It is most > annoying! Normally it should be only visible in strace. Did you see it without strace? > > You don't mention in the Email which kernel version you use but I see > from the web page you reference it is 2.6.19.1. I'm using > 2.6.18.something. > > I thought I'd have a quick look at the code, comparing i386 to x86-64 > and guess what I found..... > > On x86-64, regs->rax is "unsigned long", so the following is > needed.... regs->rax is unsigned long. I don't think your patch will make any difference. What do you think it will change? -Andi