Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 4 Dec 2002 23:02:46 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 4 Dec 2002 23:02:46 -0500 Received: from neon-gw-l3.transmeta.com ([63.209.4.196]:58386 "EHLO neon-gw.transmeta.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 4 Dec 2002 23:02:45 -0500 Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 20:11:16 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds To: george anzinger cc: Jim Houston , Stephen Rothwell , LKML , , "David S. Miller" , , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH] compatibility syscall layer (lets try again) In-Reply-To: <3DEECC1E.7F39F553@mvista.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1033 Lines: 30 On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, george anzinger wrote: > > Once it changes the system call (eax, right), could the new > call code then just get the parms from the restart_block. Agreed. > I think it would be best to keep this as generic as > possible, i.e. let the new call code fetch its own > paramerers from the restart_block. We could even have one _single_ a generic "restart" system call, and have the function pointer for that be in the restart block. > My question is who sets up these values? I think you are > saying it should be the system call. Is this right? Whatever system call that return -ERESTART_RESTARTBLOCK, yes. So it would never get set up at all in the fast path. Only in the error case path of a system call that wants to have restarting capabilities. Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/