Linux 2.2.24-rc1
o Fix a typo in the maintainers (James Morris)
o Dave Niemi has moved (Dave Niemi)
o Fix incorrect blocking on nonblock pipe (Pete Benie)
o Fix misidentification of some AMD processors (Bruce Robson)
o Fix a very obscure skb_realloc_headroom bug (James Morris)
o Fix warning in lance driver (Thomas Cort)
o Fix sign handling bug in pms driver (Silvio Cesare)
o Drop mmap on /proc/<pid>/mem as 2.4/2.5 did (Michal Zalewski)
(also fixes some bugs)
On Mon, 16 Dec 2002, Alan Cox wrote:
> Linux 2.2.24-rc1
[...]
> o Fix misidentification of some AMD processors (Bruce Robson)
[...]
Is it the following chunk? (I can't find anything more appropriate)
@@ -1378,7 +1378,8 @@
return;
case X86_VENDOR_AMD:
- init_amd(c);
+ if(init_amd(c))
+ return;
return;
case X86_VENDOR_CENTAUR:
What does it fix?
pkot
--
mailto:[email protected] :: mailto:[email protected]
http://kt.linuxnews.pl/ :: Kernel Traffic po polsku
On Tue, 2002-12-17 at 00:15, Pawel Kot wrote:
> case X86_VENDOR_AMD:
> - init_amd(c);
> + if(init_amd(c))
> + return;
> return;
>
> case X86_VENDOR_CENTAUR:
> What does it fix?
If we get a vendor string, we should use it - thats all
On Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 01:33:53AM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Tue, 2002-12-17 at 00:15, Pawel Kot wrote:
> > case X86_VENDOR_AMD:
> > - init_amd(c);
> > + if(init_amd(c))
> > + return;
> > return;
> >
> > case X86_VENDOR_CENTAUR:
> > What does it fix?
>
> If we get a vendor string, we should use it - thats all
This patch also makes us unconditionally skip the mcheck_init
if we have a vendor string. That doesn't seem right.
Dave
--
| Dave Jones. http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
| SuSE Labs
On Tue, 2002-12-17 at 01:06, Dave Jones wrote:
> > If we get a vendor string, we should use it - thats all
>
> This patch also makes us unconditionally skip the mcheck_init
> if we have a vendor string. That doesn't seem right.
True.. ok its more complicated to fix 8(
Pawel Kot wrote:
>Is it the following chunk? (I can't find anything more appropriate)
>@@ -1378,7 +1378,8 @@
> return;
>
> case X86_VENDOR_AMD:
>- init_amd(c);
>+ if(init_amd(c))
>+ return;
> return;
>
> case X86_VENDOR_CENTAUR:
>What does it fix?
>
>pkot
>
>
i assume there was more to the patch?
i mean first it did init_amd(c) and then return
now it does init_amd(c) and returns in the if or right on the next line,
so that's the same with extra bloat.
confused,
Robert Boermans.
> i assume there was more to the patch?
Well no. Its just I got it slightly wrong 8)