From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 13:18:58 -0800 Received: from sgi.SGI.COM ([192.48.153.1]:28283 "EHLO sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 13:18:47 -0800 Received: from dhcp-163-154-5-240.engr.sgi.com ([163.154.5.240]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via ESMTP id NAA05862 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 13:18:45 -0800 (PST) mail_from (ralf@oss.sgi.com) Received: (ralf@lappi.waldorf-gmbh.de) by bacchus.dhis.org id ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 13:15:13 -0800 Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 13:15:03 -0800 From: Ralf Baechle To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" Cc: Joe deBlaquiere , Florian Lohoff , linux-mips@oss.sgi.com Subject: Re: [FIX] sysmips(MIPS_ATMIC_SET, ...) ret_from_sys_call vs. o32_ret_from_sys_call Message-ID: <20010126131503.H869@bacchus.dhis.org> References: <3A70CA98.102@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from macro@ds2.pg.gda.pl on Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 11:21:43AM +0100 X-Accept-Language: de,en,fr Sender: owner-linux-mips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips-outgoing On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 11:21:43AM +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > Ralf, BTW, what do you think if we send a segfault on a memory access > violation instead of returning an error? That would make the behaviour of > MIPS_ATMIC_SET consistent for any memory contents. Does anything actually > rely on the function to return an error in such a situation? Afaik the only user of MIPS_ATOMIC_SET ever running on Linux/MIPS is the Linuxthreads code you wrote, so no. Aside of that the semantics of this syscall were defined by older MIPS operating systems such as Risc/OS and I think we should follow their example. Ralf