[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Question about signal syscalls !

To: "Ralf Baechle" <>
Subject: Re: Question about signal syscalls !
From: "Franck Bui-Huu" <>
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 10:08:43 +0100
Cc: "Daniel Jacobowitz" <>, "David Daney" <>, linux-mips <>
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=n2snF/qZM4EW3WYzk0lQdxadWFJ3V15aylBEoYZ+h7NjyLDny71deSI+3PrBLIA7n25G4wSamOmrXriXK06rpgnAUaMpQ/t9PXCqq6vPRFqg5JBKDPgepxR33Dda+4NArhj7OP6BRiaxhMxQTwlf+x2PcUDqN4CSVaqVNxqpZYE=
In-reply-to: <>
Original-recipient: rfc822;
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
On 2/5/07, Ralf Baechle <> wrote:
Not saving the s-registers into the signal frame would be a neat
optimization.  It wouldn't only make things a little faster it would

Actually it seems to me that setup_sigcontext() is almost completly
useless if the signal handler is dealt when returning from a system
call since just a very few registers are saved in the 'struct pt_regs'
structure. So setup_sigcontext() ends up saving a lot of random

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