Re: context tracking vs. syscall_trace_leave & do_notify_resume loop

[Rik van Riel]

On 05/01/2015 12:16 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 9:14 AM, Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 05/01/2015 12:05 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 9:00 AM, Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>>> I suspect we probably only need two possible function
>>>> calls at syscall exit time:
>>>>
>>>> 1) A function that is called with interrupts still
>>>>    enabled, testing flags that could be set again
>>>>    if something happens (eg. preemption) between
>>>>    when the function is called, and we return to
>>>>    user space.
>>>>
>>>> 2) A function that is called after the point of
>>>>    no return, with interrupts disabled, which
>>>>    does (mostly) small things that only happen
>>>>    once.

> C can have loops just as easily as assembly can :)  I still don't see
> why we need magic asm code to schedule and deliver signals.  We
> certainly need to have valid pt_regs to deliver signals, but that's
> easy and much cheaper than it used to be.

Oh, I never said it would all have to be in assembly :)

I would love to see the stuff in entry.S greatly simplified.

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