On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 01:07:30AM +0100, Blaisorblade wrote:
> Is there any reason for avoiding this treatment to %gs, apart that TLS code
> usually does not need it, even if the API allows for it to exist?
Is there any prospect that %gs will be getting similar treatment? %fs is
set through CLONE_SETTLS, so it would seem that something like a new
clone flag would be required for this.
> I _do_
> believe this patch fixes bug which can be tested (not verified everything),
> even if I wonder why you didn't look at the patch I sent to you time ago (I
> hadn't finished it, in truth, but there was most stuff - it had problems I
> couldn't debug at that time).
Maybe because I forgot about it - do you have a pointer?
Jeff
--
Work email - jdike at linux dot intel dot com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
_______________________________________________
User-mode-linux-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-devel
