On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 17:35, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 23 January 2011 21:35, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 16:25, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>> This looks wrong -- ppoll() is supposed to be atomic, but
>>> your implementation isn't. Why can't we just implement this
>>> by calling t
On 23 January 2011 21:35, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 16:25, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> This looks wrong -- ppoll() is supposed to be atomic, but
>> your implementation isn't. Why can't we just implement this
>> by calling the host ppoll? (might need a configure test, but
>> that'
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 16:25, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 23 January 2011 19:56, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> Some architectures (like Blackfin) only implement ppoll (and skip poll).
>> So add support for it using existing poll code.
>
> This looks wrong -- ppoll() is supposed to be atomic, but
> your i
On 23 January 2011 19:56, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> Some architectures (like Blackfin) only implement ppoll (and skip poll).
> So add support for it using existing poll code.
This looks wrong -- ppoll() is supposed to be atomic, but
your implementation isn't. Why can't we just implement this
by cal
Some architectures (like Blackfin) only implement ppoll (and skip poll).
So add support for it using existing poll code.
Signed-off-by: Mike Frysinger
---
linux-user/syscall.c | 29 -
1 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/linux-user/syscall
