From: Blaisorblade <bla...@ya...> - 2005-06-17 18:47:37
|
On Friday 17 June 2005 02:35, Jeff Dike wrote: > On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 08:09:34PM +0200, Blaisorblade wrote: > > +struct task_struct; > > +extern void arch_switch(struct task_struct *from, struct task_struct > > *to); > Is the task_struct; needed, considering that there is get_task returning > one a few lines higher? I've not checked the rest of the header; if it compiles without the line it's ok. > > + /* XXX: This is bogus, it's already done in local_irq_enable. Or does > > + * ordering matters? */ > > No, my signal handler initialization is confused and redundant in places. > Just fix that and resend. > > > Fix the do_fork calling convention: normal arch pass the regs and the new > > sp value to do_fork instead of NULL. > > > > Currently the arch-independent code ignores these values, while the UML > > code (actually it's copy_thread) gets the right values by itself. > > > > With this patch, things are fixed up. > > > > Low-priority. > > But long-overdue. This one is applied. Please retest in all configurations, the first version did an innocent change to kernel_thread() which killed TT mode. And I did a change to switch_to(), replacing prev_sched with current->thread.prev_sched (or something like that) after the last testing (if I understood things properly, it won't change anything, but give it a bit of testing; it should fail loudly if I did something wrong). -- Inform me of my mistakes, so I can keep imitating Homer Simpson's "Doh!". Paolo Giarrusso, aka Blaisorblade (Skype ID "PaoloGiarrusso", ICQ 215621894) http://www.user-mode-linux.org/~blaisorblade ___________________________________ Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB http://mail.yahoo.it |