On Tue, 23 Oct 2007, Philippe Elie wrote:
>
> For the signed-offs I thought the From: was an implicit Signed-offs.
No, there are no implicit sign-offs. The point of sign-offs is that it
makes the copyright and flow of patches explicit, so an "implicit
sign-off" would defeat the whole point.
> Test was done privately, Sami helped to narrow down the trouble, but
> he didn't test the last patch, nothing bad on Sami side, I was too
> confident the fix was obvious after narrowing it.
Well, I just wanted an ack that it was tested, since it seemed a bit
subtle and (like the sign-offs) that explicit "yes, this was tested" was
missing. Looks like I was right in asking for it:
> > The previous patch I tested by Philippe, oprof-fix-profile_pc-use.patch,
> > worked ok, but with this latest patch oprofiled aborts.
> > But kernel does not oops or print msgs.
>
> argh, I just moved the wrong eip from kernel to user space where the same
> problem occur too, *sighs*, since I can't reproduce Sami problem, my own
> test obviously worked...
>
> Sami, can you test this new patch. After testing can you report
> the contents of /dev/oprofile/stats/cpu*/sample_invalid_eip ?
>
> Linus, there is two way to fix this problem, the attached patch fix it
> by sanitizing the sampled eip,
I'm perfectly happy with the attached patch, I just want it to be
properly tested and have all the sign-offs (and explanations etc) in
place, and I can apply it.
Of course, I cannot think of a single architecture where an EIP of ~0UL is
valid anyway, so I'm also not opposed to just keeping ~0UL as the magic
value.
Linus
-
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]
