On 12/08/2007 04:24 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > i'm wondering why it had no effect now - the new code is in essence a > NOP over what we had. Maybe a dumb question. Why those changes in process_32.c in the patch and not in process_64.c? -- 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: broken suspend (sched related) [Was: 2.6.24-rc4-mm1]
- From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
- Re: broken suspend (sched related) [Was: 2.6.24-rc4-mm1]
- References:
- 2.6.24-rc4-mm1
- From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- broken suspend (sched related) [Was: 2.6.24-rc4-mm1]
- From: Jiri Slaby <[email protected]>
- Re: broken suspend (sched related) [Was: 2.6.24-rc4-mm1]
- From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
- Re: broken suspend (sched related) [Was: 2.6.24-rc4-mm1]
- From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
- Re: broken suspend (sched related) [Was: 2.6.24-rc4-mm1]
- From: Jiri Slaby <[email protected]>
- Re: broken suspend (sched related) [Was: 2.6.24-rc4-mm1]
- From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
- Re: broken suspend (sched related) [Was: 2.6.24-rc4-mm1]
- From: Jiri Slaby <[email protected]>
- Re: broken suspend (sched related) [Was: 2.6.24-rc4-mm1]
- From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
- 2.6.24-rc4-mm1
- Prev by Date: Re: Why does reading from /dev/urandom deplete entropy so much?
- Next by Date: Re: lockdep problem conversion semaphore->mutex (dev->sem)
- Previous by thread: Re: broken suspend (sched related) [Was: 2.6.24-rc4-mm1]
- Next by thread: Re: broken suspend (sched related) [Was: 2.6.24-rc4-mm1]
- Index(es):
 |