"Kevin D. Kissell" wrote:
>
> > >
> > > if (current->used_math) { /* Using the FPU again.
> > */
> > > lazy_fpu_switch(last_task_used_math);
> > > } else { /* First time FPU user.
> > */
> > > init_fpu();
> > > current->used_math = 1;
> > > }
> > > last_task_used_math = current;
> > >
> > > Clearly the second path is logically the correct one.
> >
> > Not really. See below.
> >
> > > BTW, do I see another bug here in do_cpu()? It seems that before we
> call
> > > init_fpu(), we should check last_task_used_math. If it is not NULL, we
> > should
> > > save the FP state to the last_task_used_math. Hmm, strange ...
> >
> > Strange indeed. And note that if the code were correct, your
> > surmise about the init_fpu() path being "logically the correct"
> > one would no longer be true - we'd be saving the FPU state of
> > the current process for no good reason.
>
> And note further that, by forcing current->used_math to
> zero, the old code was in fact driving the signal handler
> needlessly into the broken code...
>
By not clearing current->used_math bit, you are in fact restoring an FPU
context unnecessarily.
Jun
