On Monday 23 April 2001 22:43, George Anzinger wrote:
> "Robert H. de Vries" wrote:
> > On Monday 23 April 2001 19:45, you wrote:
> > > By the way, is the user land stuff the same for all "arch"s?
> >
> > Not if you plan to handle the CPU cycle
On Monday 23 April 2001 22:43, George Anzinger wrote:
Robert H. de Vries wrote:
On Monday 23 April 2001 19:45, you wrote:
By the way, is the user land stuff the same for all archs?
Not if you plan to handle the CPU cycle counter in user space. That is at
least what I would propose
Hi Linus,
Please accept this patch for inclusion. The impact on the kernel is
negligible and it makes the kernel a bit more POSIX feature complete. I
have received good feedback from people who have used the patch and I have
used it a lot myself without any problems.
This patch should not
Hi Linus,
Please accept this patch for inclusion. The impact on the kernel is
negligible and it makes the kernel a bit more POSIX feature complete. I
have received good feedback from people who have used the patch and I have
used it a lot myself without any problems.
This patch should not
Hi Linus,
Please accept this patch for inclusion. The impact on the kernel is
negligible and it makes the kernel a bit more POSIX feature complete. I
have received good feedback from people who have used the patch and I have
used it a lot myself without any problems.
This patch should not
Hi Linus,
Please accept this patch for inclusion. The impact on the kernel is
negligible and it makes the kernel a bit more POSIX feature complete. I
have received good feedback from people who have used the patch and I have
used it a lot myself without any problems.
This patch should not
Hi Linus,
This patch adds the POSIX timer system calls to the kernel.
The patch has been in a stable state for some time now.
It has been tested on intel hardware only (SMP and UP).
It also has been in use by myself and some other people for a year or so,
which gives me some confidence that
Hi Linus,
This patch adds the POSIX timer system calls to the kernel.
The patch has been in a stable state for some time now.
It has been tested on intel hardware only (SMP and UP).
It also has been in use by myself and some other people for a year or so,
which gives me some confidence that
On Wed, 20 Sep 2000, Julian Anastasov wrote:
>Hello,
>
>On Tue, 19 Sep 2000, Robert H. de Vries wrote:
>> It would be better to change SI_SIGIO in all the
>> include/asm-*/siginfo.h files from -5 to __SI_CODE(__SI_SIGIO, -5)
>> __SI_SIGIO would become (6 <<
On Wed, 20 Sep 2000, Julian Anastasov wrote:
Hello,
On Tue, 19 Sep 2000, Robert H. de Vries wrote:
It would be better to change SI_SIGIO in all the
include/asm-*/siginfo.h files from -5 to __SI_CODE(__SI_SIGIO, -5)
__SI_SIGIO would become (6 16).
This is not needed for SI_SIGIO
On Mon, 18 Sep 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
>> The problem is really that SI_SIGIO is negative, but it should be positive
>> to make SI_FROMUSER return false on it.
>>
>> Changing it would unfortunately break binary compatibility. This patch
>
It would be better to change SI_SIGIO in all the
On Mon, 18 Sep 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
The problem is really that SI_SIGIO is negative, but it should be positive
to make SI_FROMUSER return false on it.
Changing it would unfortunately break binary compatibility. This patch
It would be better to change SI_SIGIO in all the
12 matches
Mail list logo
