Hartvig Ekner wrote: > > I have no idea whether what I did was correct, but at least it is no less incorrect than the code currently > in there, which coredumps now for some reason (I wonder why it never crashed before). The test-bit macro > expects a bit-number, and not a mask which it is given in the current code. > > So while fixing this, I also used the normal cpu_data macro for the cpu_has_watch() macro, instead of > looking at CPU(0). > > /Hartvig The second argument to test_bit ought to have been an address, not a value. Why didn't this crash before? I just ran into it too... Kip
