On May 18, 2009, at 6:43 PM, Timo Kreuzer wrote:
Aleksey Bragin wrote:
Exactly what I was telling yesterday in IRC.
I can only remember that you asked, if it would really fix
something. ;)
And yes it does. Just not the fully correct way.
Ah yes, my bad!
This assert is
caused by recursive user call, not vice versa!!
True. But the recursive usercall is
valid. Please take a look at the
article I linked. It should simply end at some point when no more
kernel
stack is available.
Yes, I mixed those two different bugs earlier too, hence the
confusion, sorry.
Revert?
What about the updated code I send?
For me it looks correct, maybe
Alex has comments.
WBR,
Aleksey Bragin.