On 05/01/2015 12:16 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 9:14 AM, Rik van Riel <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 05/01/2015 12:05 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >>> On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 9:00 AM, Rik van Riel <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>>> I suspect we probably only need two possible function >>>> calls at syscall exit time: >>>> >>>> 1) A function that is called with interrupts still >>>> enabled, testing flags that could be set again >>>> if something happens (eg. preemption) between >>>> when the function is called, and we return to >>>> user space. >>>> >>>> 2) A function that is called after the point of >>>> no return, with interrupts disabled, which >>>> does (mostly) small things that only happen >>>> once.
> C can have loops just as easily as assembly can :) I still don't see > why we need magic asm code to schedule and deliver signals. We > certainly need to have valid pt_regs to deliver signals, but that's > easy and much cheaper than it used to be. Oh, I never said it would all have to be in assembly :) I would love to see the stuff in entry.S greatly simplified. -- All rights reversed -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
