Re: CVS commit: src

2012-09-12 Thread Emmanuel Dreyfus
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

Re: CVS commit: src

2012-09-12 Thread Matt Thomas
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

Re: CVS commit: src

2012-09-12 Thread Emmanuel Dreyfus
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

Re: CVS commit: src

2012-09-12 Thread Christos Zoulas
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

Re: CVS commit: src

2012-09-12 Thread Martin Husemann
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

Re: CVS commit: src

2012-09-12 Thread Christos Zoulas
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

Re: CVS commit: src (_UC_TLSBASE)

2012-09-12 Thread Matt Thomas
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

Re: CVS commit: src

2012-09-12 Thread Matt Thomas
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

Re: CVS commit: src (_UC_TLSBASE)

2012-09-12 Thread Emmanuel Dreyfus
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:

Re: CVS commit: src/lib/libpthread

2012-09-12 Thread David Laight
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.

Re: CVS commit: src/lib/libpthread

2012-09-12 Thread Matt Thomas
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

Re: CVS commit: [tls-maxphys] src

2012-09-12 Thread Manuel Bouyer
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