RE: gate page oops

From: Jason Baron <>
Date: 2005-06-09 01:49:57
On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, David Mosberger wrote:

> >>>>> On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 17:06:23 -0700, David Mosberger <> said:
>   David> I (finally) looked into this again and my current thinking is
>   David> that it may be better to go back to mapping the two pages
>   David> consecutively.  The gate-related code has an implicit
>   David> assumption that the gate-area is occupying a single region of
>   David> memory (that _could_ be changed, though).  Re-enabling the
>   David> HAVE_BUGG_SEGREL code unconditionally should do that, at the
>   David> expense of increasing the size of the kernel's ELF image by
>   David> 16KB.  I need to double-check, but I think there won't be any
>   David> other negative side-effects.
> Well, it's easier to just map the holes with zero-pages.  The cost is
> trivial (a few more non-zero kernel page-table entries) and it passes
> all my testing (including coredumping and gdb single-stepping over an
> EPC syscall).
> Unless there are any objections, please apply (for 2.6.12, hopefully).

Fixes my test case too. thanks.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Received on Wed Jun 8 11:51:00 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-08-02 09:20:39 EST