On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 10:34:41 +0200
[email protected] wrote:
> Both patches are obsoleted by the new logic in the context switch that
> uses the bitflags to enter the slow path, see Chuck's patch.
What darn patch?
<looks>
hm, [email protected], who appears to be Andi has (again)
removed me from cc. Possibly an act of mercy ;)
> As long as seccomp won't be nuked from the kernel, Chuck's patch seems
> the way to go.
I see "[compile tested only; requires just-sent fix to i386 system.h]", so
an appropriate next step would be for you to review, test, sign-off and
forward it, please.
> But the point is that I've no idea anymore what will happen to
> seccomp so perhaps all patches will be useless.
Shrug. If we can optimise the current code, fine. If there's a default-on
config option that makes no-TSC seccomp have zero overhead, better. If that
makes us go back to doing useful stuff, perfect.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
