On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 17:35, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 23 January 2011 21:35, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 16:25, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>> This looks wrong -- ppoll() is supposed to be atomic, but
>>> your implementation isn't. Why can't we just implement this
>>> by calling t
On 23 January 2011 21:35, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 16:25, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> This looks wrong -- ppoll() is supposed to be atomic, but
>> your implementation isn't. Why can't we just implement this
>> by calling the host ppoll? (might need a configure test, but
>> that'
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 16:25, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 23 January 2011 19:56, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> Some architectures (like Blackfin) only implement ppoll (and skip poll).
>> So add support for it using existing poll code.
>
> This looks wrong -- ppoll() is supposed to be atomic, but
> your i
On 23 January 2011 19:56, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> Some architectures (like Blackfin) only implement ppoll (and skip poll).
> So add support for it using existing poll code.
This looks wrong -- ppoll() is supposed to be atomic, but
your implementation isn't. Why can't we just implement this
by cal
