Re: [Linux-ia64] [patch] 2.4.20-ia64-021210 new spinlock code

From: David Mosberger <>
Date: 2003-03-15 17:46:28
I thought about it some more and recalled why I was so uneasy about
claiming ar.pfs is 0: the problem is that this informs that the
_previous_ register frame was empty, not the current one.  So the
unwind info technically is still wrong.  I think you realize that, and
the kernel unwinder won't complain, since it's not paranoid about
validating accesses to stacked registers.  But still, the unwind info
is wrong and I'm not terribly comfortable with that.

Received on Fri Mar 14 22:48:26 2003

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-08-02 09:20:12 EST