Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 3.1.0-rc4-tip 13/26] x86: define a x86 specific exception notifier. | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Date | Tue, 27 Sep 2011 13:46:15 +0200 |
| |
On Mon, 2011-09-26 at 21:22 +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote: > * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> [2011-09-26 16:19:51]: > > > On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 17:32 +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote: > > > @@ -820,6 +821,19 @@ do_notify_resume(struct pt_regs *regs, void *unused, __u32 thread_info_flags) > > > mce_notify_process(); > > > #endif /* CONFIG_X86_64 && CONFIG_X86_MCE */ > > > > > > + if (thread_info_flags & _TIF_UPROBE) { > > > + clear_thread_flag(TIF_UPROBE); > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_32 > > > + /* > > > + * On x86_32, do_notify_resume() gets called with > > > + * interrupts disabled. Hence enable interrupts if they > > > + * are still disabled. > > > + */ > > > + local_irq_enable(); > > > +#endif > > > + uprobe_notify_resume(regs); > > > + } > > > + > > > /* deal with pending signal delivery */ > > > if (thread_info_flags & _TIF_SIGPENDING) > > > do_signal(regs); > > > > It would be good to remove this difference between i386 and x86_64. > > > I think, we have already discussed this. I tried getting to know why we > have this difference in behaviour. However I havent been able to find > the answer. > > If you can get somebody to answer this, I would be happy to modify as > required.
The Changelog failed to mention this. Afaict there really is no reason other than that touching entry_32.S is a pain.
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |