Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265825AbUFIUE0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Jun 2004 16:04:26 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265902AbUFIUE0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Jun 2004 16:04:26 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:11676 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265825AbUFIUEK (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Jun 2004 16:04:10 -0400 Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 13:04:06 -0700 From: Pete Zaitcev To: Martin Schwidefsky Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, zaitcev@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add FUTEX_CMP_REQUEUE futex op Message-Id: <20040609130406.7942507c@lembas.zaitcev.lan> In-Reply-To: References: Organization: Red Hat, Inc. X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.11claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1578 Lines: 45 On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 18:03:49 +0200 Martin Schwidefsky wrote: > --- linux-2.6/arch/s390/kernel/compat_wrapper.S Mon Jun 7 16:07:24 2004 > +++ linux-2.6-s390/arch/s390/kernel/compat_wrapper.S Mon Jun 7 16:07:53 2004 > @@ -1097,6 +1097,8 @@ > lgfr %r4,%r4 # int > llgtr %r5,%r5 # struct compat_timespec * > llgtr %r6,%r6 # u32 * > + lgf %r0,164(%r15) # int > + stg %r0,160(%r15) > jg compat_sys_futex # branch to system call > > .globl sys32_setxattr_wrapper Is it just me, or this could he above stand a use of STACK_FRAME_OVERHEAD instead of 160? I envision a time when Ulrich Weigand comes out with a gcc -fkernel, and at that time we'll need all such references configurable. > diff -urN linux-2.6/include/asm-s390/ptrace.h linux-2.6-s390/include/asm-s390/ptrace.h > --- linux-2.6/include/asm-s390/ptrace.h Mon May 10 04:32:54 2004 > +++ linux-2.6-s390/include/asm-s390/ptrace.h Mon Jun 7 16:07:53 2004 > @@ -303,6 +303,7 @@ > */ > struct pt_regs > { > + unsigned long args[1]; > psw_t psw; This worries me, together with (__u32*)((addr_t) &__KSTK_PTREGS(child)->psw Why not to place the necessary word outside of the struct? It just logically doesn't belong. Might be just as easy to do that mvc to other place. I think I'll try to scope such an implemenation. -- Pete - 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/