On 05/22/2014 10:38 AM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> I agree.
>
>> >
>> > Maybe we should leave this for another day, and have tm_spr_active
>> > return 0 instead of -ENODEV when the machine doesn't have the hardware,
>> > or not install that hook at all. Seems like the effect will be the same,
On 05/22/2014 10:38 AM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
I agree.
Maybe we should leave this for another day, and have tm_spr_active
return 0 instead of -ENODEV when the machine doesn't have the hardware,
or not install that hook at all. Seems like the effect will be the same,
as the note
On Tue, 2014-05-13 at 18:21 +0100, Pedro Alves wrote:
> I wonder whether people are getting Roland's address from?
>
> It's frequent that ptrace related patches end up CCed to
> rol...@redhat.com, but, he's not been at Red Hat for a few years
> now. Roland, do you still want to be CCed on
On 05/20/2014 04:03 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 05/20/2014 09:14 AM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>> On 05/19/2014 08:13 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
>>> On 05/19/2014 12:46 PM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>>
>> I couldn't actually find any arch that currently returns -ENODEV in
>> the "active" hook.
On 05/20/2014 04:03 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
On 05/20/2014 09:14 AM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
On 05/19/2014 08:13 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
On 05/19/2014 12:46 PM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
I couldn't actually find any arch that currently returns -ENODEV in
the active hook. I see that
On Tue, 2014-05-13 at 18:21 +0100, Pedro Alves wrote:
I wonder whether people are getting Roland's address from?
It's frequent that ptrace related patches end up CCed to
rol...@redhat.com, but, he's not been at Red Hat for a few years
now. Roland, do you still want to be CCed on
On 05/20/2014 09:14 AM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> On 05/19/2014 08:13 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
>> On 05/19/2014 12:46 PM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>
> I couldn't actually find any arch that currently returns -ENODEV in
> the "active" hook. I see that binfmt_elf.c doesn't handle
>
On 05/19/2014 08:13 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 05/19/2014 12:46 PM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>
I couldn't actually find any arch that currently returns -ENODEV in
the "active" hook. I see that binfmt_elf.c doesn't handle
regset->active() returning < 0. Guess that may be why.
On 05/19/2014 08:13 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
On 05/19/2014 12:46 PM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
I couldn't actually find any arch that currently returns -ENODEV in
the active hook. I see that binfmt_elf.c doesn't handle
regset-active() returning 0. Guess that may be why. Looks like
On 05/20/2014 09:14 AM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
On 05/19/2014 08:13 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
On 05/19/2014 12:46 PM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
I couldn't actually find any arch that currently returns -ENODEV in
the active hook. I see that binfmt_elf.c doesn't handle
regset-active() returning
On 05/19/2014 12:46 PM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>> > I couldn't actually find any arch that currently returns -ENODEV in
>> > the "active" hook. I see that binfmt_elf.c doesn't handle
>> > regset->active() returning < 0. Guess that may be why. Looks like
>> > something that could be cleaned
On 05/15/2014 05:38 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 05/15/2014 09:25 AM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>> On 05/14/2014 04:45 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
>>> On 05/14/14 06:46, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
On 05/13/2014 10:43 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 05/05/14 08:54, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>> This
On 05/15/2014 05:38 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 05/15/2014 09:25 AM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>> On 05/14/2014 04:45 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
>>> On 05/14/14 06:46, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
On 05/13/2014 10:43 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 05/05/14 08:54, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>> This
On 05/15/2014 05:38 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
On 05/15/2014 09:25 AM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
On 05/14/2014 04:45 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
On 05/14/14 06:46, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
On 05/13/2014 10:43 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
On 05/05/14 08:54, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
This patch enables get and
On 05/15/2014 05:38 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
On 05/15/2014 09:25 AM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
On 05/14/2014 04:45 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
On 05/14/14 06:46, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
On 05/13/2014 10:43 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
On 05/05/14 08:54, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
This patch enables get and
On 05/19/2014 12:46 PM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
I couldn't actually find any arch that currently returns -ENODEV in
the active hook. I see that binfmt_elf.c doesn't handle
regset-active() returning 0. Guess that may be why. Looks like
something that could be cleaned up, to me.
> So in sum, it very much looks like the intention is for
> PTRACE_GETREGSET/PTRACE_SETREGSET to return ENODEV in the
> case the regset doesn't exist on the running machine, and then
> it looks like at least x86 works that way.
Good point... agreed. We should ENODEV when we don't have TM
On 05/15/2014 09:25 AM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> On 05/14/2014 04:45 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
>> On 05/14/14 06:46, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>> On 05/13/2014 10:43 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
On 05/05/14 08:54, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> This patch enables get and set of transactional memory
On 05/14/2014 04:45 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 05/14/14 06:46, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>> On 05/13/2014 10:43 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
>>> On 05/05/14 08:54, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
This patch enables get and set of transactional memory related register
sets through
On 05/14/2014 04:45 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
On 05/14/14 06:46, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
On 05/13/2014 10:43 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
On 05/05/14 08:54, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
This patch enables get and set of transactional memory related register
sets through PTRACE_GETREGSET/PTRACE_SETREGSET
On 05/15/2014 09:25 AM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
On 05/14/2014 04:45 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
On 05/14/14 06:46, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
On 05/13/2014 10:43 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
On 05/05/14 08:54, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
This patch enables get and set of transactional memory related
So in sum, it very much looks like the intention is for
PTRACE_GETREGSET/PTRACE_SETREGSET to return ENODEV in the
case the regset doesn't exist on the running machine, and then
it looks like at least x86 works that way.
Good point... agreed. We should ENODEV when we don't have TM hardware
On 05/14/14 12:18, Michael Neuling wrote:
>
>> s390 actually screwed that, though it got away because
>> there's a bit in HWCAP to signal transactions support. See:
>>
>> https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2013-11/msg00080.html
>>
>> Are you adding something to HWCAP too?
>
> Yes but it's
On 05/14/14 06:46, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> On 05/13/2014 10:43 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
>> On 05/05/14 08:54, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>> This patch enables get and set of transactional memory related register
>>> sets through PTRACE_GETREGSET/PTRACE_SETREGSET interface by implementing
>>> four
On 05/14/14 06:46, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
On 05/13/2014 10:43 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
On 05/05/14 08:54, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
This patch enables get and set of transactional memory related register
sets through PTRACE_GETREGSET/PTRACE_SETREGSET interface by implementing
four new powerpc
On 05/14/14 12:18, Michael Neuling wrote:
s390 actually screwed that, though it got away because
there's a bit in HWCAP to signal transactions support. See:
https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2013-11/msg00080.html
Are you adding something to HWCAP too?
Yes but it's in HWCAP2
On 05/13/2014 10:51 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> I wonder whether people are getting Roland's address from?
>
> It's frequent that ptrace related patches end up CCed to
> rol...@redhat.com, but, he's not been at Red Hat for a few years
> now. Roland, do you still want to be CCed on ptrace-related
>
On 05/13/2014 10:43 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 05/05/14 08:54, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>> This patch enables get and set of transactional memory related register
>> sets through PTRACE_GETREGSET/PTRACE_SETREGSET interface by implementing
>> four new powerpc specific register sets i.e
I wonder whether people are getting Roland's address from?
It's frequent that ptrace related patches end up CCed to
rol...@redhat.com, but, he's not been at Red Hat for a few years
now. Roland, do you still want to be CCed on ptrace-related
issues? If so, there's probably a script somewhere in
On 05/05/14 08:54, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> This patch enables get and set of transactional memory related register
> sets through PTRACE_GETREGSET/PTRACE_SETREGSET interface by implementing
> four new powerpc specific register sets i.e REGSET_TM_SPR, REGSET_TM_CGPR,
> REGSET_TM_CFPR,
On 05/05/14 08:54, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
This patch enables get and set of transactional memory related register
sets through PTRACE_GETREGSET/PTRACE_SETREGSET interface by implementing
four new powerpc specific register sets i.e REGSET_TM_SPR, REGSET_TM_CGPR,
REGSET_TM_CFPR, REGSET_CVMX
I wonder whether people are getting Roland's address from?
It's frequent that ptrace related patches end up CCed to
rol...@redhat.com, but, he's not been at Red Hat for a few years
now. Roland, do you still want to be CCed on ptrace-related
issues? If so, there's probably a script somewhere in
On 05/13/2014 10:43 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
On 05/05/14 08:54, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
This patch enables get and set of transactional memory related register
sets through PTRACE_GETREGSET/PTRACE_SETREGSET interface by implementing
four new powerpc specific register sets i.e REGSET_TM_SPR,
On 05/13/2014 10:51 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
I wonder whether people are getting Roland's address from?
It's frequent that ptrace related patches end up CCed to
rol...@redhat.com, but, he's not been at Red Hat for a few years
now. Roland, do you still want to be CCed on ptrace-related
This patch enables get and set of transactional memory related register
sets through PTRACE_GETREGSET/PTRACE_SETREGSET interface by implementing
four new powerpc specific register sets i.e REGSET_TM_SPR, REGSET_TM_CGPR,
REGSET_TM_CFPR, REGSET_CVMX support corresponding to these following new
ELF
This patch enables get and set of transactional memory related register
sets through PTRACE_GETREGSET/PTRACE_SETREGSET interface by implementing
four new powerpc specific register sets i.e REGSET_TM_SPR, REGSET_TM_CGPR,
REGSET_TM_CFPR, REGSET_CVMX support corresponding to these following new
ELF
36 matches
Mail list logo
