Re: Important NaT-bit bug fix

From: dann frazier <dannf_at_hp.com>
Date: 2004-02-28 09:38:15
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 01:29:48PM -0800, David Mosberger wrote:
> Yes, that's exactly what I meant.  Of course, I'd still advise to
> double-check by running the test program.

I was talking to David privately, and he pointed out that either
2.4 patch (the one willy posted, or the one david posted) applied
to a kernel w/o the streamlined syscall path patch will allow his
test to succeed.

>From David:
  "Actually, now that I think about it, the test is fine.  Using the
   patch that works with a stream-lined syscall-path patch also will work
   with an unpatched kernel (just a bit slower than strictly necessary).
   It's the reverse that wouldn't work, but that's not a case that you
   tested."

At what point did the streamlined syscall path go into a 2.4-ia64 release?

-- 
---------------------------
dann frazier
Hewlett-Packard
Linux and Open Source Lab
dannf@hp.com
(970) 898-0800
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Received on Fri Feb 27 17:44:30 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-08-02 09:20:23 EST