Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753509Ab1FIREF (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Jun 2011 13:04:05 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:39126 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753281Ab1FIRED (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Jun 2011 13:04:03 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <4DEFD979.50405@tilera.com> <1307607243-5737-1-git-send-email-minipli@googlemail.com> <20110609104017.GW11521@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> From: Linus Torvalds Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 10:03:06 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] init: use KERNEL_DS when trying to start init process To: Mathias Krause Cc: Al Viro , Chris Metcalf , "David S. Miller" , Chris Zankel , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@kernel.org, Rusty Russell Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 880 Lines: 19 On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 9:40 AM, Mathias Krause wrote: > > So the only question left: Should it be one patch moving the set_fs() call to > flush_old_exec() and also removing the redundant calls in flush_thread() and > start_thread() or should that be split into one for the set_fs() move and > multiple ones for the arch specific set_fs() remove? I'd suggest one patch that moves the set_fs(), and then possibly removes the ones from architectures that who-ever wrote the patch can actively test. Doing random other architectures is not worth the effort or confusion, imho. Linus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/