Re: [q] signal_map still needed in struct exec_domain?

David Woodhouse (David.Woodhouse@mvhi.com)
Thu, 16 Sep 1999 09:32:00 +0100

tigran@sco.COM said:
> I noticed that setup_frame() (on all archs) is quite happy with
> signal_invmap[] field of struct exec_domain and does not need the
> direct map (signal_map). But all existing exec_domains (riscos,
> solaris etc) still prepare both direct and inverse map arrays.

> Why do they? Or should they not? Maybe some assembler routine does
> access signal_map by hardcoded offset (like it is done e.g. for
> ENTRY(lcall7) accessing exec_domain of the current's task_struct) in
> which case, I would appreciate someone to point it out to me.

The iBCS code uses it. Take a look at
ftp://ftp.infradead.org/pub/abi/abi-diffs-3.gz

---- ---- ----
David Woodhouse David.Woodhouse@mvhi.com Office: (+44) 1223 810302
Project Leader, Process Information Systems Mobile: (+44) 976 658355
Axiom (Cambridge) Ltd., Swaffham Bulbeck, Cambridge, CB5 0NA, UK.
finger dwmw2@ferret.lmh.ox.ac.uk for PGP key.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/