On Friday 11 June 2010 8:41:49 am Kostik Belousov wrote: > On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 08:10:40AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote: > > On Friday 11 June 2010 4:31:37 am Kostik Belousov wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 04:14:05PM +0000, Alexander Motin wrote: > > > > Author: mav > > > > Date: Thu Jun 10 16:14:05 2010 > > > > New Revision: 208988 > > > > URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/208988 > > > > > > > > Log: > > > > Store interrupt trap frame into struct thread. It allows interrupt > > handler > > > > to obtain both trap frame and opaque argument submitted on > > > > registrction. > > > > After kernel and all drivers get used to it, legacy hack can be > > > > removed. > > > > > > > > Reviewed by: jhb@ > > > Just curious, why td_frame is not enough for your usage ? I believe > > > td_frame > > > is currently set only by traps and syscalls, and copied on forks. > > > > td_frame is not set on a nested interrupt. Thus, if you use td_frame and > > get > > an interrupt while in a syscall, statclock() would account the time as a > > user > > tick instead of a system tick. > > > > Put another way, td_frame always references the user --> system > > trapframe, but td_intr_frame will reference the most recent trapframe > > on the stack. > > I mean, save old td_frame on the interrupt, and assign interrupt trap > frame to td_frame. I.e., do what r208988, but replace td_intr_frame > with td_frame.
Hmmm, I had thought there were reasons that was not safe, but after looking it may be safe to do this. -- John Baldwin _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
