From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754069Ab0APUfQ (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Jan 2010 15:35:16 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753403Ab0APUfI (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Jan 2010 15:35:08 -0500 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:50348 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751094Ab0APUfH (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Jan 2010 15:35:07 -0500 Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 12:34:42 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds X-X-Sender: torvalds@localhost.localdomain To: Ingo Molnar cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" , Thomas Gleixner , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] x86 fixes In-Reply-To: <20100116170338.GA17175@elte.hu> Message-ID: References: <20100116170338.GA17175@elte.hu> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LFD 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 16 Jan 2010, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > Cyrill Gorcunov (1): > x86: kernel_thread() -- initialize SS to a known state This looks bogus. Why does it do it only on x86-64? Either people care about SS or they don't (the answer, I suspect, is "they don't"). But if they care, we should do it on both 32-bit _and_ 64-bit, no? Linus