From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30762 invoked by alias); 5 Sep 2013 18:55:51 -0000 Mailing-List: contact insight-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: insight-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 30753 invoked by uid 89); 5 Sep 2013 18:55:51 -0000 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 05 Sep 2013 18:55:51 +0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r85Itl2f016731 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 5 Sep 2013 14:55:47 -0400 Received: from valrhona.uglyboxes.com (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r85Itk4L020022 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 5 Sep 2013 14:55:47 -0400 Message-ID: <5228D3B2.6070507@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2013 18:55:00 -0000 From: Keith Seitz User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130625 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Burgess CC: insight@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add an assert that we're not overflowing the register cache. References: <5228941F.8080601@broadcom.com> <5228947C.8040706@broadcom.com> In-Reply-To: <5228947C.8040706@broadcom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2013-q3/txt/msg00037.txt.bz2 On 09/05/2013 07:26 AM, Andrew Burgess wrote: > This patch doesn't fix the issue, but adds an assert to detect the bug. If I understand correctly, the next patch fixes the actual problem, but this is added in case it happens again. Yes? > OK to apply? Yes. Thanks! Keith