On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 8:07 AM Richard Henderson < richard.hender...@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 11/8/21 3:37 AM, Warner Losh wrote: > > All instances of rewind_if_in_safe_syscall are the same, differing only > > in how the instruction point is fetched from the ucontext and the size > > of the registers. Use host_signal_pc and new host_signal_set_pc > > interfaces to fetch the pointer to the PC and adjust if needed. Delete > > all the old copies of rewind_if_in_safe_syscall. > > > > Signed-off-by: Warner Losh<i...@bsdimp.com> > > --- > > linux-user/host/aarch64/hostdep.h | 20 -------------------- > > linux-user/host/arm/hostdep.h | 20 -------------------- > > linux-user/host/i386/hostdep.h | 20 -------------------- > > linux-user/host/ppc64/hostdep.h | 20 -------------------- > > linux-user/host/riscv/hostdep.h | 20 -------------------- > > linux-user/host/s390x/hostdep.h | 20 -------------------- > > linux-user/host/x86_64/hostdep.h | 20 -------------------- > > linux-user/signal.c | 18 +++++++++++++++++- > > 8 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 141 deletions(-) > > Reviewed-by: Richard Henderson <richard.hender...@linaro.org> > > Although I think we can fairly safely drop HAVE_SAFE_SYSCALL. It is > required for proper > operation. As with host-signal.h, really. > Yes. The only possible use I can see for it is to allow people to bring up new platforms more easily by deferring the signal-safe system call details until later in that process. Warner
