lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [May]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: context tracking vs. syscall_trace_leave & do_notify_resume loop
On 05/01/2015 12:16 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 9:14 AM, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 05/01/2015 12:05 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 9:00 AM, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> I suspect we probably only need two possible function
>>>> calls at syscall exit time:
>>>>
>>>> 1) A function that is called with interrupts still
>>>> enabled, testing flags that could be set again
>>>> if something happens (eg. preemption) between
>>>> when the function is called, and we return to
>>>> user space.
>>>>
>>>> 2) A function that is called after the point of
>>>> no return, with interrupts disabled, which
>>>> does (mostly) small things that only happen
>>>> once.

> C can have loops just as easily as assembly can :) I still don't see
> why we need magic asm code to schedule and deliver signals. We
> certainly need to have valid pt_regs to deliver signals, but that's
> easy and much cheaper than it used to be.

Oh, I never said it would all have to be in assembly :)

I would love to see the stuff in entry.S greatly simplified.

--
All rights reversed


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-05-01 19:01    [W:0.033 / U:0.192 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site