[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <54EC98A9.9080203@vanguardiasur.com.ar>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 12:28:41 -0300
From: Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel@...guardiasur.com.ar>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
CC: Tobias Klauser <tklauser@...tanz.ch>,
Chung-Ling Tang <cltang@...esourcery.com>,
Walter Goossens <waltergoossens@...e.nl>,
Ley Foon Tan <lftan@...era.com>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
"nios2-dev@...ts.rocketboards.org" <nios2-dev@...ts.rocketboards.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: nios2: is the ptrace ABI correct?
Hi Arnd,
On 02/24/2015 05:54 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 24 February 2015 00:04:21 Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
>> So, tried a different approach and removed pt_regs from the UAPI ptrace.h,
>> replacing it with a new user_regs that describes how registers are passed
>> to user. This however is also problematic, as pt_regs is already used
>> by glibc (not really sure what for).
>>
>
> I've looked at glibc and could not find a use for pt_regs there. Where
> did you find it? It's quite possible that it's incorrect as well
> if the structures don't match.
>
Gah, no, you are right. I got confused.
So it would be OK to avoid remove pt_regs from the uapi headers?
How does this affect the signal handling nios2 implementation?
--
Ezequiel Garcia, VanguardiaSur
www.vanguardiasur.com.ar
--
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