linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] Improve o32 syscall handling

To: Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Improve o32 syscall handling
From: Thiemo Seufer <ica2_ts@csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 10:37:14 +0100
Cc: linux-mips@linux-mips.org
In-reply-to: <20041122071313.GC25433@linux-mips.org>
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <20041121164557.GQ20986@rembrandt.csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de> <20041122061854.GA25433@linux-mips.org> <20041122070003.GA902@rembrandt.csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de> <20041122071313.GC25433@linux-mips.org>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.6i
Ralf Baechle wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 08:00:04AM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> 
> > > Why bother, the unaligned exception handler should take care of this.
> > 
> > It really does so for unaligned accesses from kernel space?
> 
> Yes.  In fact it's crucially important for this very case.

Ok, I'll update the patch accordingly when I'm back to better
connectivity than I have now.

[snip]
> > has 4 bytes and is loaded with lw. Using a macro which abstracts for
> > 32/64bit compilation hides this needlessly, and can even lead to the
> > erraneous impression the code would be useful for 64bit, too.
> 
> I'm more following the religion of using such abstractions everywhere
> because code tends to be copied around mindlessly ...

I would agree if there was a roughly similiar 64bit version of the code.
But due to the differences between 32bit and 64bit kernel there will
never be one, so it's IMHO best to make them as distinct as reasonable
in this case.


Thiemo

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>