Re: How should nano_sleep be fixed (was: ptrace(), fork(), sleep(), exit(), SIGCHLD)

• Next message: J.R. de Jong: "RZ1000 chipset support/bugfix broken in 2.4.x: Alan did you get the report?"
• Previous message: Hisaaki Shibata: "Re: 4.7GB DVD-RAM geometry wrong?"
• In reply to: Russell King: "Re: How should nano_sleep be fixed (was: ptrace(), fork(), sleep(), exit(), SIGCHLD)"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Russell King wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2001 at 12:17:46PM +0200, christophe barbé wrote:
> > > asmlinkage long sys_nanosleep(struct timespec *rqtp, struct timespec
> > > *rmtp)
> > > {
> > > struct timespec t;
> > > unsigned long expire;
> > > + struct pt_regs * regs = (struct pt_regs *) &rqtp;
>
> Note also that this is bogus as an architecture invariant.
>
> On ARM, we have to pass a pt_regs pointer into any function that requires
> it.
>
Does that mean that any function that requires pt_regs _must_ not be in
common code? Isn't there a better solution than implementing these
functions over and over for each platform?

George
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

• Next message: J.R. de Jong: "RZ1000 chipset support/bugfix broken in 2.4.x: Alan did you get the report?"
• Previous message: Hisaaki Shibata: "Re: 4.7GB DVD-RAM geometry wrong?"
• In reply to: Russell King: "Re: How should nano_sleep be fixed (was: ptrace(), fork(), sleep(), exit(), SIGCHLD)"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 23 2001 - 21:00:16 EST