Re: [RFC] [PATCH] task_pt_regs for powerpc systems
On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 14:36 +0530, Srinivasa D S wrote:
On Monday 14 July 2008 02:36:57 pm Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
Signed-off-by: Srinivasa DS [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Can you send a cleanup patch against powerpc.git instead ?
Resending the patch against powerpc.git tree.
Nah, your initial patch is there already :-) I'm just asking for a
cleanup one that removes the useless cast.
Cheers,
Ben.
Signed-off-by: Srinivasa DS [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
include/asm-powerpc/processor.h |2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
Index: powerpc.git/include/asm-powerpc/processor.h
===
--- powerpc.git.orig/include/asm-powerpc/processor.h
+++ powerpc.git/include/asm-powerpc/processor.h
@@ -234,6 +234,8 @@ struct thread_struct {
#define thread_saved_pc(tsk)\
((tsk)-thread.regs? (tsk)-thread.regs-nip: 0)
+#define task_pt_regs(tsk)((tsk)-thread.regs)
+
unsigned long get_wchan(struct task_struct *p);
#define KSTK_EIP(tsk) ((tsk)-thread.regs? (tsk)-thread.regs-nip: 0)
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Re: [RFC] [PATCH] task_pt_regs for powerpc systems
On Monday 14 July 2008 11:06:47 pm Andreas Schwab wrote: Timur Tabi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Srinivasa D S wrote: +#define task_pt_regs(tsk) (tsk)-thread.regs Shouldn't this be: #define task_pt_regs(tsk) ((tsk)-thread.regs) just to be safe? Both - and . have already highest precedence as postfix operators. Thanks for the comments, For safer side I have used () and sent the updated patch. Thanks Srinivasa DS ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Re: [RFC] [PATCH] task_pt_regs for powerpc systems
On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 16:00 +0530, Srinivasa DS wrote: Sorry, I got it wrong, But I dont find my patch in your latest powerpc git tree(git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/benh/powerpc.git). Hrm... I thought I merged it. I'll check that tomorrow. Cheers, Ben. ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Re: [RFC] [PATCH] task_pt_regs for powerpc systems
On Monday 14 July 2008 04:02:41 am Paul Mackerras wrote:
Below attached patch defines this macro for powerpc arch. Please let
me know your comments on this.
+#define task_pt_regs(tsk) ((struct pt_regs *)(tsk)-thread.regs)
The cast is unnecessary since tsk-thread.regs is already a struct
pt_regs *.
True.
Also note that tsk-thread.regs will be NULL for a kernel
thread.
Yes, users of task_pt_regs will verify for NULL. Updated patch attached
below.
Signed-off-by: Srinivasa DS [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
include/asm-powerpc/processor.h |2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
Index: linux-2.6.26-rc9/include/asm-powerpc/processor.h
===
--- linux-2.6.26-rc9.orig/include/asm-powerpc/processor.h
+++ linux-2.6.26-rc9/include/asm-powerpc/processor.h
@@ -214,6 +214,8 @@ struct thread_struct {
#define thread_saved_pc(tsk)\
((tsk)-thread.regs? (tsk)-thread.regs-nip: 0)
+#define task_pt_regs(tsk) (tsk)-thread.regs
+
unsigned long get_wchan(struct task_struct *p);
#define KSTK_EIP(tsk) ((tsk)-thread.regs? (tsk)-thread.regs-nip: 0)
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Re: [RFC] [PATCH] task_pt_regs for powerpc systems
On Mon, 2008-07-14 at 14:01 +0530, Srinivasa D S wrote: On Monday 14 July 2008 04:02:41 am Paul Mackerras wrote: Below attached patch defines this macro for powerpc arch. Please let me know your comments on this. +#define task_pt_regs(tsk)((struct pt_regs *)(tsk)-thread.regs) The cast is unnecessary since tsk-thread.regs is already a struct pt_regs *. True. Also note that tsk-thread.regs will be NULL for a kernel thread. Yes, users of task_pt_regs will verify for NULL. Updated patch attached below. Signed-off-by: Srinivasa DS [EMAIL PROTECTED] Can you send a cleanup patch against powerpc.git instead ? Thanks ! Ben ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Re: [RFC] [PATCH] task_pt_regs for powerpc systems
Srinivasa D S wrote: +#define task_pt_regs(tsk)(tsk)-thread.regs Shouldn't this be: #define task_pt_regs(tsk) ((tsk)-thread.regs) just to be safe? -- Timur Tabi Linux kernel developer at Freescale ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Re: [RFC] [PATCH] task_pt_regs for powerpc systems
Timur Tabi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Srinivasa D S wrote: +#define task_pt_regs(tsk) (tsk)-thread.regs Shouldn't this be: #define task_pt_regs(tsk) ((tsk)-thread.regs) just to be safe? Both - and . have already highest precedence as postfix operators. Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, [EMAIL PROTECTED] SuSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany PGP key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5 And now for something completely different. ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Re: [RFC] [PATCH] task_pt_regs for powerpc systems
Srinivasa D S writes: task_pt_regs() macro defines pt_regs for the given task, this macro is currently not defined for powerpc arch. We need this macro for upcoming utrace features. Below attached patch defines this macro for powerpc arch. Please let me know your comments on this. +#define task_pt_regs(tsk)((struct pt_regs *)(tsk)-thread.regs) The cast is unnecessary since tsk-thread.regs is already a struct pt_regs *. Also note that tsk-thread.regs will be NULL for a kernel thread. Paul. ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Re: [RFC] [PATCH] task_pt_regs for powerpc systems
On Mon, 2008-07-14 at 08:32 +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote: Srinivasa D S writes: task_pt_regs() macro defines pt_regs for the given task, this macro is currently not defined for powerpc arch. We need this macro for upcoming utrace features. Below attached patch defines this macro for powerpc arch. Please let me know your comments on this. +#define task_pt_regs(tsk) ((struct pt_regs *)(tsk)-thread.regs) The cast is unnecessary since tsk-thread.regs is already a struct pt_regs *. Also note that tsk-thread.regs will be NULL for a kernel thread. Hrm.. I stuck that one in powerpc master, but not yet in next. Wonder if I should back it out, sounds like a minor issue. Ben. ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Re: [RFC] [PATCH] task_pt_regs for powerpc systems
On Mon, 2008-07-07 at 19:52 +0530, Srinivasa D S wrote:
Hi
task_pt_regs() macro defines pt_regs for the given task, this macro is
currently not defined for powerpc arch. We need this macro for
upcoming utrace features.
Below attached patch defines this macro for powerpc arch. Please let
me know your comments on this.
Signed-off-by: Srinivasa DS [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Looks good to me. I'll include it in the next batch.
Cheers,
Ben.
---
include/asm-powerpc/processor.h |2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
Index: linux-2.6.26-rc9/include/asm-powerpc/processor.h
===
--- linux-2.6.26-rc9.orig/include/asm-powerpc/processor.h
+++ linux-2.6.26-rc9/include/asm-powerpc/processor.h
@@ -214,6 +214,8 @@ struct thread_struct {
#define thread_saved_pc(tsk)\
((tsk)-thread.regs? (tsk)-thread.regs-nip: 0)
+#define task_pt_regs(tsk)((struct pt_regs *)(tsk)-thread.regs)
+
unsigned long get_wchan(struct task_struct *p);
#define KSTK_EIP(tsk) ((tsk)-thread.regs? (tsk)-thread.regs-nip: 0)
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
