linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH, RFC] MIPS: Implement the getcontext API

To: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph@codesourcery.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] MIPS: Implement the getcontext API
From: Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 14:38:15 +0200
Cc: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@codesourcery.com>, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, libc-ports@sourceware.org, "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@linux-mips.org>
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0904152018070.3560@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0902282326580.4064@tp.orcam.me.uk> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0904152018070.3560@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 08:19:33PM +0000, Joseph S. Myers wrote:

> >  Here is code to implement the getcontext API for MIPS.  This glibc patch 
> > is sent to the linux-mips mailing list, because it makes use of an 
> > internal syscall which has not been designated as a part of the public 
> > ABI.  I am writing to request this syscall to become fixed as a part of 
> > the ABI or to seek for an alternative.  See below for the rationale.
> 
> Was there any conclusion about whether the assumptions this patch makes 
> about the kernel are OK (and so it can go in) or not?

I've probably not spelled it out clearly enough in an earlier email on
this topic but yes, I think it's ok.  In all reality the stackframe has
de facto become a part of the ABI that needs to be kept stable.

  Ralf

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