Re: [patch] x86: rename is_at_popf(), add iret to tests and fix insn length

On Wednesday 02 August 2006 15:35, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
> 
> On Wed, 2 Aug 2006 14:54:33 +0200. Andi Kleen wrote:
> 
> > > is_at_popf() needs to test for the iret instruction as well as
> > > popf.  So add that test and rename it to is_setting_trap_flag().
> > 
> > Do you have a single real example where anybody is actually using IRET
> > in user space? 
> 
> No, but Albert Cahalan complained so I figured it should be fixed.

I suppose he just collected all the obscure FIXMEs in the code he could find.
Ok I merged it, but only because it is so little code.

-Andi
-
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/

---

• References:
  • Re: [patch] x86: rename is_at_popf(), add iret to tests and fix insn length
    • From: Chuck Ebbert <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: WARN_ON causes recursive unwind panic
• Next by Date: Re: [Patch] kernel memory leak fix for af_unix datagram getpeersec patch
• Previous by thread: Re: [patch] x86: rename is_at_popf(), add iret to tests and fix insn length
• Next by thread: sparsemem usage
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]