Jake Burkholder wrote:
The system call stubs in libc are leaf functions; basically just a
trap instruction followed by a return. They do not touch the stack
at all, or change the stack pointer. One of the first few instructions
on entry to the kernel is a save, which rotates the register
Julian Elischer wrote:
interesting but not exactly brief.. :-)
Does brevity really matter?
You asked why. I gave a reference in the general class;
Jake gave a specific reference for the upcall issues he think
the code will face.
I think you have enough justification for Jake's position to
On Thu, 30 May 2002, Peter Wemm wrote:
Julian Elischer wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2002, Jake Burkholder wrote:
[..]
It is much more difficult to ensure that all the register values
end up the same on each return from the system call on sparc64, due
to the way that register stack works.
Peter Wemm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you want final commit approval/objections, you really need to either
include or go to developers@ instead since they're the ones dealing with
actual commit process.
s/developers/arch/
DES
--
Dag-Erling Smorgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe:
for permission to commit it (Seeking OK to
commit KSE MIII-again), so he should be talking with other committers.
current@ is not particularly well tracked by committers themselves due to
relatively low signal to noise. At the very least, you have to tell
committers@ that you've posted about it elsewhere
Peter Wemm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But he said he was asking for permission to commit it (Seeking OK to
commit KSE MIII-again), so he should be talking with other committers.
I guess I just don't see why he needs our permission, as long as he's
given us a chance to comment on the technical
On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 09:14:33PM +0200, Bernd Walter wrote:
On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 09:20:57AM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
ok, but does anyone other than john (who has commented) have any comments
about the logic and work in the change?
I'm working on his comments but comments by
On Fri, 31 May 2002, Bernd Walter wrote:
On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 09:14:33PM +0200, Bernd Walter wrote:
There are problems with the patchset:
fixed
This is code that translates the new states to old states for single
threaded processes so that 'ps' and friends can continue
to report a
Apparently, On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 06:56:30PM -0700,
Julian Elischer said words to the effect of;
+ /* Note: use of M_WAITOK means it won't fail. */
+ newkse-ke_pcb =
+ (((struct md_store *)(newkse-ke_mdstorage))-mds_pcb);
+ newkse-ke_frame =
+ (((struct md_store
Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
Peter Wemm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But he said he was asking for permission to commit it (Seeking OK to
commit KSE MIII-again), so he should be talking with other committers.
I guess I just don't see why he needs our permission, as long as he's
given us
On Fri, 31 May 2002, Jake Burkholder wrote:
[aweful stuff]
(always did dislike sparc)
jake..
can you show me the sequecne of operations performed on the stack
in a syscall before and after the jump to kernel space?
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe
Apparently, On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 01:45:50PM -0700,
Julian Elischer said words to the effect of;
On Fri, 31 May 2002, Jake Burkholder wrote:
[aweful stuff]
(always did dislike sparc)
Whatever. It's the most fun architecture I've found to program for.
jake..
can you show
interesting but not exactly brief.. :-)
On Fri, 31 May 2002, Jake Burkholder wrote:
The system call stubs in libc are leaf functions; basically just a
trap instruction followed by a return. They do not touch the stack
at all, or change the stack pointer. One of the first few
Apparently, On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 05:49:59PM -0700,
Julian Elischer said words to the effect of;
interesting but not exactly brief.. :-)
On Fri, 31 May 2002, Jake Burkholder wrote:
The system call stubs in libc are leaf functions; basically just a
trap instruction
On Fri, 31 May 2002, Jake Burkholder wrote:
Apparently, On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 05:49:59PM -0700,
Julian Elischer said words to the effect of;
interesting but not exactly brief.. :-)
On Fri, 31 May 2002, Jake Burkholder wrote:
The system call stubs in libc are
ok, but does anyone other than john (who has commented) have any comments
about the logic and work in the change?
I'm working on his comments but comments by others would sure be
appreciated..
especially if they actually comment on what I'm trying to do..
If I can get the changes for the
On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 09:20:57AM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
ok, but does anyone other than john (who has commented) have any comments
about the logic and work in the change?
I'm working on his comments but comments by others would sure be
appreciated..
especially if they actually
On Thu, 30 May 2002, Bernd Walter wrote:
Largely these need to be written by someone who is intimately aquainted
with the register set of the machine in question and knows
what registers need to be saved to restore a user context correctly.
I can do the alpha part tomorrow unless
Julian Elischer wrote:
ok, but does anyone other than john (who has commented) have any comments
about the logic and work in the change?
If you want final commit approval/objections, you really need to either
include or go to developers@ instead since they're the ones dealing with
actual
apparently, On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 09:20:57AM -0700,
Julian Elischer said words to the effect of;
ok, but does anyone other than john (who has commented) have any comments
about the logic and work in the change?
I'm working on his comments but comments by others would sure be
On Thu, 30 May 2002, Jake Burkholder wrote:
apparently, On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 09:20:57AM -0700,
Julian Elischer said words to the effect of;
Index: bin/ksetest/Makefile
===
Index:
Julian Elischer wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2002, Jake Burkholder wrote:
[..]
It is much more difficult to ensure that all the register values
end up the same on each return from the system call on sparc64, due
to the way that register stack works. The current test program
will not work at
22 matches
Mail list logo
