On Thu, Aug 16, 2001 at 06:00:10PM +0200, christophe barbé wrote:
> Le jeu, 16 aoû 2001 12:29:05, Russell King a écrit :
> > 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.
>
> I'm not sure to understand your point.
Its quite simple:
int sys_foo(struct pt_regs regs)
{
}
does not reveal the user space registers on ARM. It instead reveals crap.
Why? The ARM procedure call standard specifies that the first 4 words
of "regs" in this case are in 4 processor registers. The other words
are on the stack immediately above the frame created by foo. This is
not how the stack is layed out on ARM on entry to a sys_* function
due to the requirement for these to be restartable.
Instead, we must pass a pointer thusly:
int sys_foo(struct pt_regs *regs)
{
}
and the pointer is specifically setup and passed in by a very small
assembler wrapper.
> The first sentence tell me that the "struct pt_regs ..." line is x86
> specific and this was the reason behind my proposition to not add a _signal
> macro but a _sys_nanosleep macro to include this too.
Correct. But the act of getting "struct pt_regs" on entry to the function
is also architecture specific.
> The second sentence seem's to indicate that this is a classic problem for
> the ARM port. So if this is correct what is the best way to solve it ?
It used to be with such functions as sys_execve. Then, sys_execve
became an architecture specific wrapper around do_execve (not by my
hand), so I guess that its not an ARM specific problem.
--
Russell King (rmk@arm.linux.org.uk) The developer of ARM Linux
http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/personal/aboutme.html
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 23 2001 - 21:00:16 EST