From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S271604AbRHPSSG>; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 14:18:06 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S271605AbRHPSR4>; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 14:17:56 -0400
Received: from gateway-1237.mvista.com ([12.44.186.158]:60920 "EHLO
	hermes.mvista.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id <S271604AbRHPSRt> convert rfc822-to-8bit; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 14:17:49 -0400
Message-ID: <3B7C0E3F.24EFB03D@mvista.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 11:17:35 -0700
From: george anzinger <george@mvista.com>
Organization: Monta Vista Software
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.12-20b i686)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Russell King <rmk@arm.linux.org.uk>
CC: christophe =?iso-8859-1?Q?barb=E9?= <christophe.barbe@lineo.fr>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: How should nano_sleep be fixed (was: ptrace(), fork(), sleep(), 
 exit(), SIGCHLD)
In-Reply-To: <20010813093116Z270036-761+611@vger.kernel.org> <20010814092849.E13892@pc8.lineo.fr> <20010814201825Z270798-760+1687@vger.kernel.org> <3B7A9953.744977A5@mvista.com> <3B7AB93D.F8B5B455@mvista.com> <3B7B1B07.A9FB293B@mvista.com> <20010816121746.A5861@pc8.lineo.fr> <20010816112905.A30202@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <20010816180010.A9235@pc8.lineo.fr> <20010816171248.E30202@flint.arm.linux.org.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Russell King wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2001 at 06:00:10PM +0200, christophe barbé wrote:
> > Le jeu, 16 aoû 2001 12:29:05, Russell King a écrit :
> > > 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.
> 
> Its quite simple:
> 
> int sys_foo(struct pt_regs regs)
> {
> }
> 
> does not reveal the user space registers on ARM.  It instead reveals crap.
> Why?  The ARM procedure call standard specifies that the first 4 words
> of "regs" in this case are in 4 processor registers.  The other words
> are on the stack immediately above the frame created by foo.  This is
> not how the stack is layed out on ARM on entry to a sys_* function
> due to the requirement for these to be restartable.
> 
> Instead, we must pass a pointer thusly:
> 
> int sys_foo(struct pt_regs *regs)
> {
> }
> 
> and the pointer is specifically setup and passed in by a very small
> assembler wrapper.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Correct.  But the act of getting "struct pt_regs" on entry to the function
> is also architecture specific.
> 
> > 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 ?
> 
> It used to be with such functions as sys_execve.  Then, sys_execve
> became an architecture specific wrapper around do_execve (not by my
> hand), so I guess that its not an ARM specific problem.
> 
> --
So, it seems we need an arch. specific wrapper for nano_sleep.  Now, how
to do it so it is a smooth transition?

George