From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 12:00:22 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 12:00:03 -0400 Received: from mailhost.lineo.fr ([194.250.46.226]:1548 "EHLO mailhost.lineo.fr") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 11:59:58 -0400 Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 18:00:10 +0200 From: christophe =?iso-8859-1?Q?barb=E9?= To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: Russell King Subject: Re: How should nano_sleep be fixed (was: ptrace(), fork(), sleep(), exit(), SIGCHLD) Message-ID: <20010816180010.A9235@pc8.lineo.fr> 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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?=3C20010816112905=2EA30202?= =?iso-8859-1?B?QGZsaW50LmFybS5saW51eC5vcmcudWs+OyBmcm9tIHJta0Bhcm0ubGlu?= =?iso-8859-1?B?dXgub3JnLnVrIG9uIGpldSwgYW/7?= 16, 2001 at 12:29:05 +0200 X-Mailer: Balsa 1.2.pre1-cvs20010812 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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