From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx1-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.11] helo=sc8-sf-mx1.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1DXnhD-0000LQ-I0 for user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 16 May 2005 15:04:19 -0700 Received: from smtp005.mail.ukl.yahoo.com ([217.12.11.36]) by sc8-sf-mx1.sourceforge.net with smtp (Exim 4.41) id 1DXn8O-0007mC-C8 for user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 16 May 2005 14:29:58 -0700 From: Blaisorblade Subject: Re: [uml-devel] Removing call to function pointer in inner loop of copy_from_user() References: <200505152044.44400.blaisorblade@yahoo.it> <200505161904.14197.blaisorblade@yahoo.it> <20050516184857.GA8171@ccure.user-mode-linux.org> In-Reply-To: <20050516184857.GA8171@ccure.user-mode-linux.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200505162327.32855.blaisorblade@yahoo.it> Sender: user-mode-linux-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: user-mode-linux-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: The user-mode Linux development list List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 23:27:32 +0200 To: user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Cc: Jeff Dike , Bodo Stroesser On Monday 16 May 2005 20:48, Jeff Dike wrote: > On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 07:04:13PM +0200, Blaisorblade wrote: > > I could move maybe move sigsetjmp to kernelspace code; > > How are you going to get a definition of jmp_buf in there? I actually want to include the headers. Not that I would refuse to copy verbatim from headers (binary compatibility allows that to work as long we use the same host OS / libc combination). > > however, another > > possibility would be to use the exception handler tables we've always > > supported without using them (only drawback is that the code *must* be > > inlined, and possibly the need for some assembler code, which however is > > probably avoidable). > Maybe. That's worth looking in to. I've used the setjmp scheme in > preference to that because it's portable, but maybe we should switch back > in some places. Yes, more portable but slightly slower. Also, if you get the compiler to inline the code anyway, you only write pseudo-ops in assembler, so that's no problem. -- Paolo Giarrusso, aka Blaisorblade Skype user "PaoloGiarrusso" Linux registered user n. 292729 http://www.user-mode-linux.org/~blaisorblade ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by Oracle Space Sweepstakes Want to be the first software developer in space? Enter now for the Oracle Space Sweepstakes! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7412&alloc_id=16344&op=click _______________________________________________ User-mode-linux-devel mailing list User-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-devel