* Jeff Dike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 05:48:16PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > thanks, we indeed missed those. Should we carry this in x86.git, or
> > would you like to carry this in your UML tree?
>
> Probably better for it to go in x86.git - that way it travels with
On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 05:48:16PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> thanks, we indeed missed those. Should we carry this in x86.git, or
> would you like to carry this in your UML tree?
Probably better for it to go in x86.git - that way it travels with
your sigcontext patch.
* Jeff Dike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> git-x86, in commit 70aa1bd3839e3ec74ce65316528a82570e8de666, changed a
> lot of the sigcontext field names. This patch changes UML usage to
> match.
thanks, we indeed missed those. Should we carry this in x86.git, or
would you like to carry this in yo
git-x86, in commit 70aa1bd3839e3ec74ce65316528a82570e8de666, changed
a lot of the sigcontext field names. This patch changes UML usage to
match.
I also changed includes of generic headers from "" to <>.
Signed-off-by: Jeff Dike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
arch/um/sys-i386/signal.c | 50
