Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 17:26:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 17:26:40 -0400 Received: from pc-62-30-255-50-az.blueyonder.co.uk ([62.30.255.50]:17578 "EHLO kushida.apsleyroad.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 17:26:39 -0400 Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 22:30:06 +0100 From: Jamie Lokier To: Andi Kleen Cc: Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: context switch vs. signal delivery [was: Re: Accelerating user mode linux] Message-ID: <20020805223006.A8773@kushida.apsleyroad.org> References: <20020805163910.C7130@kushida.apsleyroad.org.suse.lists.linux.kernel> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: ; from ak@suse.de on Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 06:46:38PM +0200 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 853 Lines: 22 A couple of questions. Andi Kleen wrote: > + err |= setup_sigcontext(&frame->sc, &frame->fpstate, regs, set->sig[0], > + (ka->sa.sa_flags&SA_NOFP)); > err |= setup_sigcontext(&frame->uc.uc_mcontext, &frame->fpstate, > - regs, set->sig[0]); > + regs, set->sig[0], !!(ka->sa.sa_flags&SA_NOFP)); 1: Why the inconsistency between the two ways the SA_NOFP flag is checked? 2: What happens when the user's signal handler decides it wants to save the FPU state itself (after all) and proceed with some FPU use. Will sigreturn restore the user-saved FPU state? Just curious. -- Jamie - 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/