Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86: Pass in pt_regs pointer for syscalls that need it

[Tejun Heo]

Tejun Heo wrote:
>> I checked the disassembly of these functions and didn't see this
>> happen on gcc 4.3.0.
> 
> Well, tracking down why run_init_process() is returning 0 with
> -fstack-protector wasn't much of fun.  These breakages are very subtle
> and if we're gonna pass in pointer to pt_regs anyway and thus can
> guarantee such breakage can't happen at no additional cost, I think we
> should do that even if it means slightly more argument fetching in a
> few places.

In addition, if we do that, we can remove the horrible
asmlinkage_protect() thing altogether.

-- 
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/