On Tue, 20 Mar 2007, Andi Kleen wrote: > > The code never did that. In fact many of the problems we had initially > especially came out of that -- the fallback code that would handle > this case wasn't fully correct. I don't keep my emails any more, but you *never* fixed the problems in arch/*/kernel/traps.c. Yes, the kernel/unwind.c issues generally got fixed. The infinite loops in the *callers* never did. > Also frankly often your analysis about what went wrong was just > incorrect. Still in denial, I see. Do you still claim that "the fallback position always did the right thing"? Despite the fact that the unwinder had sometimes *corrupted* the incoming information so much that the fallback position was the one that oopsed? And no, you didn't fix that. And no, IT DID NOT use probe_kernel_address like you still claim. Anyway, you work for Suse, I don't care what you do to the Suse kernel. Maybe it will get stable some day. Somehow, I doubt it. Linus _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
