I hope that conclusion is remove #if 0 from signal.c code. M > You're right. (I think I've been staring at this too much today... :) > > Steve > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: John Williams [mailto:john.williams@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] >> Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 5:26 PM >> To: Stephen Neuendorffer >> Cc: monstr@xxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; arnd@xxxxxxxx; > linux-arch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; John >> Linn; matthew@xxxxxx; will.newton@xxxxxxxxx; drepper@xxxxxxxxxx; > microblaze-uclinux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; >> grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxxxx; Michal Simek >> Subject: RE: [PATCH 07/56] microblaze_v2: Signal support >> >> On Mon, 2008-05-05 at 17:13 -0700, Stephen Neuendorffer wrote: >>> I'm somewhat ignorant about what this code is attempting to do, but > with >>> some quick poking around (m68knommu, blackfin) seems to suggest that >>> other architectures don't do this, while others (v850) have almost >>> exactly the same code (although they are somewhat smarter and are >>> careful not to flush the whole cache). >>> >>> At the very least, it seems like there is some work in this area > needed. >> flush_cache_sigtramp should just invalidate 8 bytes up from the base >> address of the trampoline. This is just the region on the process > stack >> where we insert a kind of call-back back. Writing the opcodes goes > via >> the dcache, and so there's a vanishingly small possibility that the > CPU >> will get a false hit on on an icache fetch when the code is executed. >> >> That was what Michal's patch had when I scanned it yesterday. It >> certainly won't/shouldn't be invalidating the entire cache. >> >> Cheers, >> >> John >> >> > > > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
