Re: [PATCH] strange work_notifysig code since 2.6.16

Joe Korty <[email protected]> writes:

> > I suspect this won't link with CONFIG_VM86 disabled because save_v86_state
> > goes away. I think we just need to move the #endif up a few lines.
> 
> Hi Matt,
> Since that also makes the 'then' and 'else' branches identical, perhaps
> this patch would be better .. it eliminates the VM86 test entirely when
> CONFIG_VM86=n.
> 
> Boot tested with CONFIG_VM86=y.

Added.

-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:
  • [PATCH] strange work_notifysig code since 2.6.16
    • From: Joe Korty <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] strange work_notifysig code since 2.6.16
    • From: Matt Mackall <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] strange work_notifysig code since 2.6.16
    • From: Joe Korty <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Behaviour of compat_msgsnd/compat_msgrcv calls
• Next by Date: Re: suspend to disk -> resume -> X with DRI extension on R100 chips hangs
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] strange work_notifysig code since 2.6.16
• Next by thread: 2.6.18: BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#0!
• 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]