On 11/10/21 5:20 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
Although I think we can fairly safely drop HAVE_SAFE_SYSCALL. It is
required for
proper
operation. As with host-signal.h, really.
Yes. The only possible use I can see for it is to allow people to bring up
new
platforms
On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 9:39 AM Warner Losh wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 8:07 AM Richard Henderson <
> richard.hender...@linaro.org> wrote:
>
>> On 11/8/21 3:37 AM, Warner Losh wrote:
>> > All instances of rewind_if_in_safe_syscall are the same, differing only
>> > in how the instruction
On 11/8/21 03:37, Warner Losh wrote:
> All instances of rewind_if_in_safe_syscall are the same, differing only
> in how the instruction point is fetched from the ucontext and the size
> of the registers. Use host_signal_pc and new host_signal_set_pc
> interfaces to fetch the pointer to the PC and
On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 8:07 AM Richard Henderson <
richard.hender...@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 11/8/21 3:37 AM, Warner Losh wrote:
> > All instances of rewind_if_in_safe_syscall are the same, differing only
> > in how the instruction point is fetched from the ucontext and the size
> > of the
On 11/8/21 3:37 AM, Warner Losh wrote:
All instances of rewind_if_in_safe_syscall are the same, differing only
in how the instruction point is fetched from the ucontext and the size
of the registers. Use host_signal_pc and new host_signal_set_pc
interfaces to fetch the pointer to the PC and
All instances of rewind_if_in_safe_syscall are the same, differing only
in how the instruction point is fetched from the ucontext and the size
of the registers. Use host_signal_pc and new host_signal_set_pc
interfaces to fetch the pointer to the PC and adjust if needed. Delete
all the old copies
