[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <537A1889.8030801@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 15:43:21 +0100
From: Pedro Alves <palves@...hat.com>
To: Anshuman Khandual <khandual@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
CC: mikey@...ling.org, avagin@...nvz.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
oleg@...hat.com, michael@...erman.id.au, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 2/3] powerpc, ptrace: Enable support for transactional
memory register sets
On 05/19/2014 12:46 PM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>> > I couldn't actually find any arch that currently returns -ENODEV in
>> > the "active" hook. I see that binfmt_elf.c doesn't handle
>> > regset->active() returning < 0. Guess that may be why. Looks like
>> > something that could be cleaned up, to me.
>> >
> Also it does not consider the return value of regset->active(t->task, regset)
> (whose objective is to figure out whether we need to request regset->n number
> of elements or less than that) in the subsequent call to regset->get function.
Indeed.
TBC, do you plan on fixing this? Otherwise ...
> Now coming to the installation of the .active hooks part for all the new regsets, it
> should be pretty straight forward as well. Though its optional and used for elf_core_dump
> purpose only, its worth adding them here. Example of an active function should be something
> like this. The function is inexpensive as required.
>
> +static int tm_spr_active(struct task_struct *target,
> + const struct user_regset *regset)
> +{
> + if (!cpu_has_feature(CPU_FTR_TM))
> + return -ENODEV;
... unfortunately this will do the wrong thing.
Thanks,
--
Pedro Alves
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists