[parisc-linux] backport unaligned.c Randolph patch

[parisc-linux] backport unaligned.c Randolph patch

[Joel Soete]

Hi Randolph,

Here is the backport of your unaligned.c patch:

=====
--- unaligned.c.SAV     2003-11-01 15:26:14.000000000 +0000
+++ unaligned.c 2003-11-01 15:26:04.000000000 +0000
@@ -24,24 +24,6 @@
  #include <linux/config.h>
  #include <linux/sched.h>
  #include <linux/kernel.h>
-#include <linux/string.h>
-#include <linux/errno.h>
-#include <linux/ptrace.h>
-#include <linux/timer.h>
-#include <linux/mm.h>
-#include <linux/smp.h>
-#include <linux/smp_lock.h>
-#include <linux/spinlock.h>
-#include <linux/init.h>
-#include <linux/interrupt.h>
-#include <asm/system.h>
-#include <asm/uaccess.h>
-#include <asm/io.h>
-#include <asm/irq.h>
-#include <asm/atomic.h>
-
-#include <asm/smp.h>
-#include <asm/pdc.h>

  /* #define DEBUG_UNALIGNED 1 */

@@ -493,37 +475,6 @@
         struct siginfo si;
         register int flop=0;    /* true if this is a flop */

-       /* if the unaligned access is inside the kernel:
-        *   if the access is caused by a syscall, then we fault the calling
-        *     user process
-        */
-       if (!user_mode(regs))
-       {
-               const struct exception_table_entry *fix;
-
-               /* see if the offending code have its own
-                * exception handler
-                */
-
-               fix = search_exception_table(regs->iaoq[0]);
-               if (fix)
-               {
-                       /* lower bits of fix->skip are flags
-                        * upper bits are the handler addr
-                        */
-                       if (fix->skip & 1)
-                               regs->gr[8] = -EFAULT;
-                       if (fix->skip & 2)
-                               regs->gr[9] = 0;
-
-                       regs->iaoq[0] += ((fix->skip) & ~3);
-                       regs->iaoq[1] = regs->iaoq[0] + 4;
-                       regs->gr[0] &= ~PSW_B;
-
-                       return;
-               }
-       }
-
         /* log a message with pacing */
         if (user_mode(regs))
         {
=====

I check on my b2k: it compiles and boot well.

hth,
	Joel

[parisc-linux] Re: backport unaligned.c Randolph patch

[Randolph Chung]

> Here is the backport of your unaligned.c patch:

I think your mailer munged your patch, it doesn't apply cleanly. i've
applied a cleaned up version of your patch to 2.4.

randolph
-- 
Randolph Chung
Debian GNU/Linux Developer, hppa/ia64 ports
http://www.tausq.org/

Re: [parisc-linux] Re: backport unaligned.c Randolph patch

[Grant Grundler]

On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 09:32:15AM -0800, Randolph Chung wrote:
> I think your mailer munged your patch, it doesn't apply cleanly. i've
> applied a cleaned up version of your patch to 2.4.

Was the intent to add new code?
The patch was reversed it seems too.

grant

[parisc-linux] Re: backport unaligned.c Randolph patch

[Joel Soete]

Randolph Chung wrote:
>>Here is the backport of your unaligned.c patch:
> 
> 
> I think your mailer munged your patch, it doesn't apply cleanly.
I don't think that mozilla was the cause but well my 'cut and past' 
method :(, sorry.

> i've
> applied a cleaned up version of your patch to 2.4.
> 
> randolph
Thanks a lot,
	Joel

Re: [parisc-linux] Re: backport unaligned.c Randolph patch

[Joel Soete]

Hi Grant,

In fact I didn't discusse of this patch (which effectively remove code) with
Randolph but I back-port in confidence because it remember me a problem I
encounter when I suggest the "traps.c alignement" [1] to Carlos:
<http://lists.parisc-linux.org/pipermail/parisc-linux/2003-October/021229.html>

In the same time I was looking for Sukyo bug in 2.6 and point out that the
previous patch [1] make hang the system in place of the crash (due to a division
by zero).

May be my conclusion was erronious: "force_sig_info() would 'schedule'
a SIGFPE. But in this very particular situation of the early boot, imho the
scheduler is not yet launched." (Right/Wrong?)

Anyway I so suggest another patch:<http://lists.parisc-linux.org/pipermail/parisc-linux/2003-October/021251.html>

; which essentialy bypass force_sig_info() in kernel mode. But I presume
that Carlos don't yet ci this patch because he is looking for a better solution
in that special case (I don't know if it is possible to lauch the scheduler
earlier?).

Thanks in advance for all advise,
    Joel
 


>-- Original Message --
>From: Grant Grundler <grundler@parisc-linux.org>
>To: Randolph Chung <randolph@tausq.org>
>Cc: Joel Soete <soete.joel@tiscali.be>, parisc-linux@parisc-linux.org
>Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2003 12:30:06 -0700
>Subject: Re: [parisc-linux] Re: backport unaligned.c Randolph patch
>
>
>On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 09:32:15AM -0800, Randolph Chung wrote:
> I think your mailer munged your patch, it doesn't apply cleanly. i've
> applied a cleaned up version of your patch to 2.4.

Was the intent to add new code?
The patch was reversed it
>seems too.

grant
_______________________________________________
parisc-linux mailing list
parisc-linux@lists.parisc-linux.org
http://lists.parisc-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/parisc-linux



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tiscali ADSL: 3 mois GRATUITS! L'Internet rapide, c'est pour tout le monde.

http://reg.tiscali.be/default.asp?lg=fr