From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: faults and signals From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt In-Reply-To: <20061010020427.GA15822@wotan.suse.de> References: <20061009140354.13840.71273.sendpatchset@linux.site> <20061009140447.13840.20975.sendpatchset@linux.site> <1160427785.7752.19.camel@localhost.localdomain> <452AEC8B.2070008@yahoo.com.au> <1160442685.32237.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> <452AF546.4000901@yahoo.com.au> <1160445510.32237.50.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1160445601.32237.53.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20061010020427.GA15822@wotan.suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 12:07:32 +1000 Message-Id: <1160446052.32237.55.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Nick Piggin Cc: Nick Piggin , Hugh Dickins , Linux Memory Management , Andrew Morton , Jes Sorensen , Linux Kernel , Ingo Molnar List-ID: On Tue, 2006-10-10 at 04:04 +0200, Nick Piggin wrote: > On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 12:00:01PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > > > > Yes. Tho it's also fairly easy to just add an argument to the wrapper > > > and fix all archs... but yeah, I will play around. > > > > Actually, user_mode(ptregs) is standard, we could add a ptregs arg to > > the wrapper... or just get rid of it and fix archs, it's not like it was > > that hard. There aren't that many callers :) > > > > Is there any reason why we actually need that wrapper ? > > Not much reason. If you go through and fix up all callers then > that should be fine. I suppose I can do that... I'll give it a go once all your new stuff is in -mm and I've started adapting SPUfs to it :) Ben. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org