On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 9:39 AM Warner Losh <i...@bsdimp.com> wrote: > > > 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. >
If we do, we'd need to remove the linux-user on a mips host tests from the CI pipeline. Those are the only ones left that don't use this that we test. Warner
