Re: [PATCH 1/5] signal(x86_32): Improve the signal stack overflow check

[Shi Weihua <shiwh@cn.fujitsu.com>]

Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote::
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 18:22:05 +0800, Shi Weihua said:
> 
>> -	/*
>> -	 * If we are on the alternate signal stack and would overflow it, don't.
>                                                                    notice this ^
>> -	 * Return an always-bogus address instead so we will die with SIGSEGV.
> 
>> +			 * If we are on the alternate signal stack and would
>> +			 * overflow it, don't return an always-bogus address
>                                 missing here ^
>> +			 * instead so we will die with SIGSEGV.
> 
> "don't. Return" is a vastly different semantic than "don't return".
> 
> I think the same comment error was cut-n-pasted into all 5 patches...
> 

Sorry, it's my mistake.
I will correct the all 5 patches. Thanks.