On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 05:41:16PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote: > Here is the branch based on rc5 (information below) > and here is giweb. > http://developer.petalogix.com/git/gitweb.cgi?p=linux-2.6-microblaze.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/viro/arch-microblaze-rc5 > > I have also looked at your sys_fork / sys_vfork / sys_clone unification > and I have fixed it for Microblaze. > > Also I have done some tests on it for sure. > > I would add sys_execve/kernel_execve/kernel_thread patches to my next branch. > Are you OK with that? Umm... In principle - yes, but I've a couple of question abouts those. 1) What's that set_fs(USER_DS) in start_thread() for? Note that we do the same thing in flush_old_exec(), at the same time we remove PF_KTHREAD from current->flags. While we are at it, if we *ever* hit do_signal() with KERNEL_DS, we are very deep in trouble. set_fs(USER_DS) in setup_{rt_,}frame() is pointless. 2) your definition of current_pt_regs() is an exact copy of on in include/linux/ptrace.h; why is "microblaze: Define current_pt_regs" needed at all? IOW, I'd rather added #include <linux/ptrace.h> to arch/microblaze/kernel/process.c instead... -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
