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

Mike Jagdis (mike@roan.co.uk)
Thu, 16 Sep 1999 10:06:59 +0100 (GMT/BST)


On Wed, 15 Sep 1999, Tigran Aivazian wrote:

> 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.

The iBCS module uses them to map foreign signal numbers to Linux
signal numbers when handling signal syscalls. If nothing else
uses the signal_map table outside iBCS then exec_domains outside
iBCS should either have an identity mapping or are broken :-).

Mike

-- 
         Failure isn't an option - it's built in to Windows
.----------------------------------------------------------------------.
|  Mike Jagdis                  |  Internet:  mailto:mike@roan.co.uk   |
|  Roan Technology Ltd.         |                                      |
|  2 Markham Mews, Broad Street |  Telephone:  +44 118 989 0403        |
|  Wokingham ENGLAND            |  Fax:        +44 118 989 1195        |
`----------------------------------------------------------------------'

- 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/