Re: How should nano_sleep be fixed (was: ptrace(), fork(), sleep(), exit(), SIGCHLD)

["christophe barbé" <christophe.barbe@lineo.fr>]

Le jeu, 16 aoû 2001 12:29:05, Russell King a écrit :
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2001 at 12:17:46PM +0200, christophe barbé wrote:
> > > asmlinkage long sys_nanosleep(struct timespec *rqtp, struct timespec
> > > *rmtp)
> > > {
> > > 	struct timespec t;
> > > 	unsigned long expire;
> > > +	struct pt_regs * regs = (struct pt_regs *) &rqtp;
> 
> 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.

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.

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 ?

Christophe

> --
> Russell King (rmk@arm.linux.org.uk)                The developer of ARM
> Linux
>              http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/personal/aboutme.html
> 

-- 
Christophe Barbé
Software Engineer - christophe.barbe@lineo.fr
Lineo France - Lineo High Availability Group
42-46, rue Médéric - 92110 Clichy - France
phone (33).1.41.40.02.12 - fax (33).1.41.40.02.01
http://www.lineo.com