On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 11:55:21 -0700 (PDT), Linus Torvalds wrote: > Wouldn't this simpler patch result in exactly the same behaviour?
I thought the extra code would be good documentation, but the comments work just as well. This is a little clearer (hand edited patch:) --- a/arch/i386/kernel/traps.c +++ b/arch/i386/kernel/traps.c @@ -803,15 +803,17 @@ void math_error(void __user *eip) */ cwd = get_fpu_cwd(task); swd = get_fpu_swd(task); - switch (((~cwd) & swd & 0x3f) | (swd & 0x240)) { + switch (swd & ~cwd & 0x3f) { case 0x000: default: break; case 0x001: /* Invalid Op */ - case 0x041: /* Stack Fault */ - case 0x241: /* Stack Fault | Direction */ + /* + * swd & 0x240 == 0x040: Stack Underflow + * swd & 0x240 == 0x240: Stack Overflow + * User must clear the SF bit (0x40) if set + */ info.si_code = FPE_FLTINV; - /* Should we clear the SF or let user space do it ???? */ break; case 0x002: /* Denormalize */ case 0x010: /* Underflow */ __ Chuck - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/