Re: [2.6 patch] x86_64: re-add a newline to RESTORE_CONTEXT

> 
> But the patch is a bugfix.  Without it, you cannot do
> 
> 	RESTORE_CONTEXT	\
> 	.globl ...	\
> 
> Was the addition of this restriction to RESTORE_CONTEXT deliberate, or
> mistaken?

RESTORE_CONTEXT is a private macro and I don't see why we should
support out of tree usages for that. As long as it works as it is 
in the tree it is fine.

-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/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [2.6 patch] x86_64: re-add a newline to RESTORE_CONTEXT
    • From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [2.6 patch] x86_64: re-add a newline to RESTORE_CONTEXT
    • From: Adrian Bunk <[email protected]>
  • Re: [2.6 patch] x86_64: re-add a newline to RESTORE_CONTEXT
    • From: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
  • Re: [2.6 patch] x86_64: re-add a newline to RESTORE_CONTEXT
    • From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] local_t : Documentation
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 3/3] eCryptfs: Encrypted passthrough
• Previous by thread: Re: [2.6 patch] x86_64: re-add a newline to RESTORE_CONTEXT
• Next by thread: Re: [2.6 patch] x86_64: re-add a newline to RESTORE_CONTEXT
• 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]