On Friday 15 February 2013 12:53 PM, Jonas Bonn wrote:
> On 11 February 2013 15:07, Al Viro wrote:
>
>> I'd suggest asking itanic folks; they do *not* put callee-saved stuff into
>> sigcontext. AFAICS, they don't have setcontext() implemented as a syscall
>> at all - it's done as sigprocmask() +
On 11 February 2013 15:07, Al Viro wrote:
> I'd suggest asking itanic folks; they do *not* put callee-saved stuff into
> sigcontext. AFAICS, they don't have setcontext() implemented as a syscall
> at all - it's done as sigprocmask() + doing to callee-saved registers what
> longjmp() does.
On 11 February 2013 15:07, Al Viro v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk wrote:
I'd suggest asking itanic folks; they do *not* put callee-saved stuff into
sigcontext. AFAICS, they don't have setcontext() implemented as a syscall
at all - it's done as sigprocmask() + doing to callee-saved registers what
On Friday 15 February 2013 12:53 PM, Jonas Bonn wrote:
On 11 February 2013 15:07, Al Viro v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk wrote:
I'd suggest asking itanic folks; they do *not* put callee-saved stuff into
sigcontext. AFAICS, they don't have setcontext() implemented as a syscall
at all - it's done as
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 11:30:50AM +0100, Jonas Bonn wrote:
> >> Is this really true? Don't setcontext and friends require that _all_
> >> the registers be part of sigcontext?
> >
> > But for an ABI - callee saved regs will anyhow be saved/restored even in
> > setcontext case ! So collecting it
On Monday 11 February 2013 06:32 PM, Jonas Bonn wrote:
> On 11 February 2013 13:37, Vineet Gupta wrote:
>> Anyhow going back to my orig patch - if we park the
>> callee-regs-in-sigcontext-or-not, other bits look OK ?
>>
> Aside from the callee-regs question (which I hope somebody more
>
On 11 February 2013 13:37, Vineet Gupta wrote:
>
> Anyhow going back to my orig patch - if we park the
> callee-regs-in-sigcontext-or-not, other bits look OK ?
>
Aside from the callee-regs question (which I hope somebody more
knowledgeable can chime in on): Acked-by: Jonas Bonn
--
To
On Monday 11 February 2013 05:42 PM, Jonas Bonn wrote:
> On 11 February 2013 12:22, Vineet Gupta wrote:
>> On Monday 11 February 2013 04:23 PM, Jonas Bonn wrote:
>>> On 11 February 2013 11:28, James Hogan wrote:
On 11/02/13 10:13, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> On Monday 11 February 2013 03:06
On 11 February 2013 12:22, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> On Monday 11 February 2013 04:23 PM, Jonas Bonn wrote:
>> On 11 February 2013 11:28, James Hogan wrote:
>>> On 11/02/13 10:13, Vineet Gupta wrote:
On Monday 11 February 2013 03:06 PM, Jonas Bonn wrote:
> On 11 February 2013 08:26, Vineet
On Monday 11 February 2013 04:23 PM, Jonas Bonn wrote:
> On 11 February 2013 11:28, James Hogan wrote:
>> On 11/02/13 10:13, Vineet Gupta wrote:
>>> On Monday 11 February 2013 03:06 PM, Jonas Bonn wrote:
On 11 February 2013 08:26, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> The only downside of this
Hi Jonas,
On 11/02/13 10:53, Jonas Bonn wrote:
> And now that I think about it some more, I think this is done
> incorrectly in the openrisc arch, too, as the fast-path for
> rt_sigreturn probably only restores the call-clobbered regs.
> sigreturn probably needs to be special-cased to _always_
On 11/02/13 10:53, Jonas Bonn wrote:
> On 11 February 2013 11:28, James Hogan wrote:
>> On 11/02/13 10:13, Vineet Gupta wrote:
>>> On Monday 11 February 2013 03:06 PM, Jonas Bonn wrote:
On 11 February 2013 08:26, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> The only downside of this patch is that
On 11 February 2013 11:28, James Hogan wrote:
> On 11/02/13 10:13, Vineet Gupta wrote:
>> On Monday 11 February 2013 03:06 PM, Jonas Bonn wrote:
>>> On 11 February 2013 08:26, Vineet Gupta wrote:
>>>
The only downside of this patch is that userspace signal stack grows in
size,
On 11 February 2013 11:13, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> On Monday 11 February 2013 03:06 PM, Jonas Bonn wrote:
>> On 11 February 2013 08:26, Vineet Gupta wrote:
>>
>>> The only downside of this patch is that userspace signal stack grows in
>>> size,
>>> since signal frame only cares about scratch regs
On 11/02/13 10:13, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> On Monday 11 February 2013 03:06 PM, Jonas Bonn wrote:
>> On 11 February 2013 08:26, Vineet Gupta wrote:
>>
>>> The only downside of this patch is that userspace signal stack grows in
>>> size,
>>> since signal frame only cares about scratch regs
On Monday 11 February 2013 03:06 PM, Jonas Bonn wrote:
> On 11 February 2013 08:26, Vineet Gupta wrote:
>
>> The only downside of this patch is that userspace signal stack grows in size,
>> since signal frame only cares about scratch regs (pt_regs), but has to
>> accommodate
>> unused
On 11 February 2013 08:26, Vineet Gupta wrote:
>
> The only downside of this patch is that userspace signal stack grows in size,
> since signal frame only cares about scratch regs (pt_regs), but has to
> accommodate
> unused placeholder for callee regs too by virtue of using user_regs_struct.
On 11 February 2013 08:26, Vineet Gupta vineet.gup...@synopsys.com wrote:
The only downside of this patch is that userspace signal stack grows in size,
since signal frame only cares about scratch regs (pt_regs), but has to
accommodate
unused placeholder for callee regs too by virtue of
On Monday 11 February 2013 03:06 PM, Jonas Bonn wrote:
On 11 February 2013 08:26, Vineet Gupta vineet.gup...@synopsys.com wrote:
The only downside of this patch is that userspace signal stack grows in size,
since signal frame only cares about scratch regs (pt_regs), but has to
accommodate
On 11/02/13 10:13, Vineet Gupta wrote:
On Monday 11 February 2013 03:06 PM, Jonas Bonn wrote:
On 11 February 2013 08:26, Vineet Gupta vineet.gup...@synopsys.com wrote:
The only downside of this patch is that userspace signal stack grows in
size,
since signal frame only cares about scratch
On 11 February 2013 11:13, Vineet Gupta vineet.gup...@synopsys.com wrote:
On Monday 11 February 2013 03:06 PM, Jonas Bonn wrote:
On 11 February 2013 08:26, Vineet Gupta vineet.gup...@synopsys.com wrote:
The only downside of this patch is that userspace signal stack grows in
size,
since
On 11 February 2013 11:28, James Hogan james.ho...@imgtec.com wrote:
On 11/02/13 10:13, Vineet Gupta wrote:
On Monday 11 February 2013 03:06 PM, Jonas Bonn wrote:
On 11 February 2013 08:26, Vineet Gupta vineet.gup...@synopsys.com wrote:
The only downside of this patch is that userspace signal
On 11/02/13 10:53, Jonas Bonn wrote:
On 11 February 2013 11:28, James Hogan james.ho...@imgtec.com wrote:
On 11/02/13 10:13, Vineet Gupta wrote:
On Monday 11 February 2013 03:06 PM, Jonas Bonn wrote:
On 11 February 2013 08:26, Vineet Gupta vineet.gup...@synopsys.com wrote:
The only downside
Hi Jonas,
On 11/02/13 10:53, Jonas Bonn wrote:
And now that I think about it some more, I think this is done
incorrectly in the openrisc arch, too, as the fast-path for
rt_sigreturn probably only restores the call-clobbered regs.
sigreturn probably needs to be special-cased to _always_
On Monday 11 February 2013 04:23 PM, Jonas Bonn wrote:
On 11 February 2013 11:28, James Hogan james.ho...@imgtec.com wrote:
On 11/02/13 10:13, Vineet Gupta wrote:
On Monday 11 February 2013 03:06 PM, Jonas Bonn wrote:
On 11 February 2013 08:26, Vineet Gupta vineet.gup...@synopsys.com wrote:
On 11 February 2013 12:22, Vineet Gupta vineet.gup...@synopsys.com wrote:
On Monday 11 February 2013 04:23 PM, Jonas Bonn wrote:
On 11 February 2013 11:28, James Hogan james.ho...@imgtec.com wrote:
On 11/02/13 10:13, Vineet Gupta wrote:
On Monday 11 February 2013 03:06 PM, Jonas Bonn wrote:
On Monday 11 February 2013 05:42 PM, Jonas Bonn wrote:
On 11 February 2013 12:22, Vineet Gupta vineet.gup...@synopsys.com wrote:
On Monday 11 February 2013 04:23 PM, Jonas Bonn wrote:
On 11 February 2013 11:28, James Hogan james.ho...@imgtec.com wrote:
On 11/02/13 10:13, Vineet Gupta wrote:
On 11 February 2013 13:37, Vineet Gupta vineet.gup...@synopsys.com wrote:
Anyhow going back to my orig patch - if we park the
callee-regs-in-sigcontext-or-not, other bits look OK ?
Aside from the callee-regs question (which I hope somebody more
knowledgeable can chime in on): Acked-by: Jonas
On Monday 11 February 2013 06:32 PM, Jonas Bonn wrote:
On 11 February 2013 13:37, Vineet Gupta vineet.gup...@synopsys.com wrote:
Anyhow going back to my orig patch - if we park the
callee-regs-in-sigcontext-or-not, other bits look OK ?
Aside from the callee-regs question (which I hope
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 11:30:50AM +0100, Jonas Bonn wrote:
Is this really true? Don't setcontext and friends require that _all_
the registers be part of sigcontext?
But for an ABI - callee saved regs will anyhow be saved/restored even in
setcontext case ! So collecting it for that
Hi Arnd,
On Thursday 24 January 2013 04:20 PM, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> Includes following fixes courtesy review by Al-Viro
>
> * Tracer poke to Callee-regs were lost
>
> Before going off into do_signal( ) we save the user-mode callee regs
> (as they are not saved by default as part of
Hi Arnd,
On Thursday 24 January 2013 04:20 PM, Vineet Gupta wrote:
Includes following fixes courtesy review by Al-Viro
* Tracer poke to Callee-regs were lost
Before going off into do_signal( ) we save the user-mode callee regs
(as they are not saved by default as part of pt_regs).
32 matches
Mail list logo
