On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 2:37 PM, H. Peter Anvin <h.peter.an...@intel.com> wrote: > On 05/02/2014 02:07 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: >> On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 2:04 PM, Andy Lutomirski <l...@amacapital.net> wrote: >>> >>> Because otherwise I'd have to keep track of whether it's a zeroentry >>> or an errorentry. I can't stuff the offset in a register without even >>> more stack hackery, since there are no available registers there. I >>> could split the whole thing into two code paths, I guess. >> >> Ahh. Never mind. I didn't think about the fact that the error entry >> case had one more field on the stack. Your approach is all fine, it >> was me not seeing the problem. >> > > I have to admit to being rather partial to the idea of simply doing > "push $0" on entry for the vectors that don't push an error code, like > the early exception handling code does. >
Hah -- I think I just faked both of you out :) I don't think this has anything to do with the error code, and I think that the errorentry code already does more or less that: it pushes -1. The real issue here is probably the magic 16-byte stack alignment when a non-stack-switching interrupt happens. --Andy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/