Re: [PATCH] extable cleanup

[Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>]

>
>
>On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Rusty Russell wrote:
>>
>> Fairly straightforward consolidation of extable handling.  Sparc64 is
>> trickiest, with its extable range stuff (ideally, the ranges would be
>> in a separate __extable_range section, then the extable walking code
>> could be made common, too).
>> 
>> Only tested on x86: ppc and sparc64 written untested, others broken.
>
>Did you test on a true i386, which needs exception handling very early on 
>to handle the test for broken WP? In other words, are all the exception 
>table data structures properly initialized?
>  
>
It's the other way around: a real 80386 doesn't need the early exception 
handling, all other cpus need it.
The WP test works by writing to a write-protected page while at ring 0. 
A real 80386 ignores the write-protected bit, later x86 cpus honor it 
and cause a page fault.

Rusty, against which kernel is the patch you have posted? I've tried 
both 2.5.54 and the latest bk shapshot from www.kernel.org, I get an 
patch error in kernel/extable.c.

--
    Manfred