Matt Thomas m...@3am-software.com wrote:
Only those ports which reserve a register in mcontext for the TCB
pointer should define _UC_TLSBASE. Otherwise _UC_TLSBASE has no
meaning and thus should not be defined.
Well, we have the choice between:
- define it and keeep it unused
- not define it
On Sep 11, 2012, at 11:19 PM, Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
Matt Thomas m...@3am-software.com wrote:
Only those ports which reserve a register in mcontext for the TCB
pointer should define _UC_TLSBASE. Otherwise _UC_TLSBASE has no
meaning and thus should not be defined.
Well, we have the
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:20:47PM -0700, Matt Thomas wrote:
_UC_TLSBASE is an MD thing.
iMO it is a MI interface with a MD implementation. It just says whether
TLS is part of struct mcontext or not. The MD code can handle that in
the kernel or in userland if that is possible.
Defining it
In article 20120912072608.gr10...@homeworld.netbsd.org,
Emmanuel Dreyfus m...@netbsd.org wrote:
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:20:47PM -0700, Matt Thomas wrote:
_UC_TLSBASE is an MD thing.
iMO it is a MI interface with a MD implementation. It just says whether
TLS is part of struct mcontext or
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 01:00:52PM +, Christos Zoulas wrote:
This is orthogonal. I believe that in the discussion we had in core
we decided to not define _UC_TLSBASE unconditionally, and that ports
should define it as needed.
What does as needed mean here? Can you show an example of an
On Sep 12, 4:04pm, mar...@duskware.de (Martin Husemann) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: CVS commit: src
| On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 01:00:52PM +, Christos Zoulas wrote:
| This is orthogonal. I believe that in the discussion we had in core
| we decided to not define _UC_TLSBASE unconditionally, and
On Sep 12, 2012, at 12:26 AM, Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:20:47PM -0700, Matt Thomas wrote:
_UC_TLSBASE is an MD thing.
iMO it is a MI interface with a MD implementation. It just says whether
TLS is part of struct mcontext or not. The MD code can handle that in
On Sep 12, 2012, at 7:04 AM, Martin Husemann wrote:
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 01:00:52PM +, Christos Zoulas wrote:
This is orthogonal. I believe that in the discussion we had in core
we decided to not define _UC_TLSBASE unconditionally, and that ports
should define it as needed.
What
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 07:48:52AM -0700, Matt Thomas wrote:
Actually, several don't. arm doesn't, mips doesn't, vax doesn't,
m68k doesn't. They may be others.
Are we talking about the same things? All these ports arlready did
it conditionally on _UC_TLSBASE:
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 02:55:48PM +, Matt Thomas wrote:
Module Name: src
Committed By: matt
Date: Wed Sep 12 14:55:48 UTC 2012
Modified Files:
src/lib/libpthread: pthread_specific.c
Log Message:
Only copy the ucontext_t in pthread_setcontext if _UC_TLSBASE is set.
On Sep 12, 2012, at 9:45 AM, David Laight wrote:
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 02:55:48PM +, Matt Thomas wrote:
Module Name: src
Committed By:matt
Date:Wed Sep 12 14:55:48 UTC 2012
Modified Files:
src/lib/libpthread: pthread_specific.c
Log Message:
Only
Hello,
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 06:15:37AM +, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
Added Files:
src [tls-maxphys]: MAXPHYS-NOTES
Log Message:
Initial snapshot of work to eliminate 64K MAXPHYS. Basically works for
physio (I/O to raw devices); needs more doing to get it going with the
12 matches
Mail list logo