On Thursday 19 January 2006 00:38, Jeff Dike wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 08:53:29PM +0100, Blaisorblade wrote:
> > I looked at my patch's comment and noticed that arch_copy_tls, your
> > introduction, shouldn't indeed be needed, because dup_task_struct should
> > do that (it copies the whole task_struct, and it seems that arch_thread
> > is included in that blob rather than pointed too).
> > I'm fairly puzzled at that. Have you any idea on this?
> I wondered about that, too, but hadn't bothered looking into it yet. I'm
> suspicious that we initialize p.thread with INIT_THREAD, which would
> obviously wipe it out.
> > Also, since you have a good test FS (Fedora), can I send you the updated
> > versions I put out / can you test them? My Sarge isn't good any more,
> > likely because glibc was updated by apt-get, and it works well with the
> > LDT fallback.
> I have - they are on my patches page. I added back the
> user_desc -> modify_ldt_t thing because I don't have a user_desc here.
> Other than that
> (and the O_FORCE succeeded message),
Uff, I want to remove load_TLS(O_FORCE) from there altogether.
Could you unapply
and verify it works correctly however? I want that to work :-) !
> it seems to be working
> > I've just uploaded 2.6.15-bs1-tls for people to test.
> What I grabbed is what was there this morning. If you changed anything
> significant, let me know, and I'll pull again.
Ok, don't think anything changed for now. I'm changing things however, so
please stick modification in different patches so we merge easily.
Inform me of my mistakes, so I can keep imitating Homer Simpson's "Doh!".
Paolo Giarrusso, aka Blaisorblade (Skype ID "PaoloGiarrusso", ICQ 215621894)
Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB