Julian Elischer wrote:
> interesting but not exactly brief.. :-)
Does brevity really matter?
You asked "why". I gave a reference in the general class;
Jake gave a specific reference for the upcall issues he think
the code will face.
I think you have enough justification for Jake's position to
Jake Burkholder wrote:
> The system call stubs in libc are leaf functions; basically just a
> trap instruction followed by a return. They do not touch the stack
> at all, or change the stack pointer. One of the first few instructions
> on entry to the kernel is a save, which rotates the register
On Fri, 31 May 2002, Jake Burkholder wrote:
> Apparently, On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 05:49:59PM -0700,
> Julian Elischer said words to the effect of;
>
> > interesting but not exactly brief.. :-)
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 31 May 2002, Jake Burkholder wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > The system call stu
Apparently, On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 05:49:59PM -0700,
Julian Elischer said words to the effect of;
> interesting but not exactly brief.. :-)
>
>
> On Fri, 31 May 2002, Jake Burkholder wrote:
>
> >
> > The system call stubs in libc are leaf functions; basically just a
> > trap instruct
interesting but not exactly brief.. :-)
On Fri, 31 May 2002, Jake Burkholder wrote:
>
> The system call stubs in libc are leaf functions; basically just a
> trap instruction followed by a return. They do not touch the stack
> at all, or change the stack pointer. One of the first few instruct
Apparently, On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 01:45:50PM -0700,
Julian Elischer said words to the effect of;
>
>
> On Fri, 31 May 2002, Jake Burkholder wrote:
>
> [aweful stuff]
> (always did dislike sparc)
Whatever. It's the most fun architecture I've found to program for.
>
> jake..
> can
Julian Elischer wrote:
> On Fri, 31 May 2002, Jake Burkholder wrote:
>
> [aweful stuff]
> (always did dislike sparc)
>
> jake..
> can you show me the sequecne of operations performed on the stack
> in a syscall before and after the jump to kernel space?
It's not that awful. Read the paper "SP
On Fri, 31 May 2002, Jake Burkholder wrote:
[aweful stuff]
(always did dislike sparc)
jake..
can you show me the sequecne of operations performed on the stack
in a syscall before and after the jump to kernel space?
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-c
Apparently, On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 06:56:30PM -0700,
Julian Elischer said words to the effect of;
> > > + /* Note: use of M_WAITOK means it won't fail. */
> > > + newkse->ke_pcb =
> > > + &(((struct md_store *)(newkse->ke_mdstorage))->mds_pcb);
> > > + newkse->ke_frame =
> > > +
On Fri, 31 May 2002, Bernd Walter wrote:
> On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 09:14:33PM +0200, Bernd Walter wrote:
>
> There are problems with the patchset:
fixed
This is code that translates the new states to old states for single
threaded processes so that 'ps' and friends can continue
to report a s
Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
> Peter Wemm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > But he said he was asking for "permission" to commit it ("Seeking OK to
> > commit KSE MIII-again"), so he should be talking with other committers.
>
> I guess I just don't see why he needs our permission, as long as he's
> g
On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 09:14:33PM +0200, Bernd Walter wrote:
> On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 09:20:57AM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
> > ok, but does anyone other than john (who has commented) have any comments
> > about the logic and work in the change?
> >
> > I'm working on his comments but commen
Peter Wemm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But he said he was asking for "permission" to commit it ("Seeking OK to
> commit KSE MIII-again"), so he should be talking with other committers.
I guess I just don't see why he needs our permission, as long as he's
given us a chance to comment on the tech
Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
> Peter Wemm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > If you want final commit approval/objections, you really need to either
> > include or go to developers@ instead since they're the ones dealing with
> > actual commit process.
>
> s/developers/arch/
I wasn't clear with this
Peter Wemm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If you want final commit approval/objections, you really need to either
> include or go to developers@ instead since they're the ones dealing with
> actual commit process.
s/developers/arch/
DES
--
Dag-Erling Smorgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe:
On Thu, 30 May 2002, Peter Wemm wrote:
> Julian Elischer wrote:
> > On Thu, 30 May 2002, Jake Burkholder wrote:
> [..]
> > > It is much more difficult to ensure that all the register values
> > > end up the same on each return from the system call on sparc64, due
> > > to the way that register
Julian Elischer wrote:
> On Thu, 30 May 2002, Jake Burkholder wrote:
[..]
> > It is much more difficult to ensure that all the register values
> > end up the same on each return from the system call on sparc64, due
> > to the way that register stack works. The current test program
> > will not wo
On Thu, 30 May 2002, Jake Burkholder wrote:
> apparently, On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 09:20:57AM -0700,
> Julian Elischer said words to the effect of;
>
> >
> >
>
> > Index: bin/ksetest/Makefile
> > ===
> > Index: bin
apparently, On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 09:20:57AM -0700,
Julian Elischer said words to the effect of;
>
>
> ok, but does anyone other than john (who has commented) have any comments
> about the logic and work in the change?
>
> I'm working on his comments but comments by others would sure
Julian Elischer wrote:
>
>
> ok, but does anyone other than john (who has commented) have any comments
> about the logic and work in the change?
If you want final commit approval/objections, you really need to either
include or go to developers@ instead since they're the ones dealing with
actua
On Thu, 30 May 2002, Bernd Walter wrote:
> > Largely these need to be written by someone who is intimately aquainted
> > with the register set of the machine in question and knows
> > what registers need to be saved to restore a user context correctly.
>
> I can do the alpha part tomorrow unle
On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 09:20:57AM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
> ok, but does anyone other than john (who has commented) have any comments
> about the logic and work in the change?
>
> I'm working on his comments but comments by others would sure be
> appreciated..
> especially if they actually
22 matches
Mail list logo
