Re: Kernel oops with 2.6.26, padlock and ipsec: probably problem with fpu state changes

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Wolfgang Walter
Date: Saturday, August 9, 2008 - 3:59 pm

On Saturday 09 August 2008, Suresh Siddha wrote:
process
interrupt

The first solution - if it works and padlock is the only which has problem 
with it - seems to be a good fix for 2.6.26. If it works I can't say as I'm 
not familiar enough with these things. But I'll happily test it :-).

The second would be a little bit intrusive, wouldn't it? Most machines don't 
have padlock, and therfore don't need this change but nevertheless may be 
affected (i.e. they use MMX for memcpy or MMX/SSE with raid6) and now get a 
different behaviour. Don't know how expensive such a local_irq_enable/disable 
would be.


Regards,
-- 
Wolfgang Walter
Studentenwerk München
Anstalt des öffentlichen Rechts
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: Kernel oops with 2.6.26, padlock and ipsec: probably p ..., Wolfgang Walter, (Sat Aug 9, 3:59 pm)