From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Aug 1 16:20:27 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 812F537B401; Fri, 1 Aug 2003 16:20:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rwcrmhc12.comcast.net (rwcrmhc12.comcast.net [216.148.227.85]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE89843F75; Fri, 1 Aug 2003 16:20:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from julian@elischer.org) Received: from interjet.elischer.org ([12.233.125.100]) by attbi.com (rwcrmhc12) with ESMTP id <2003080123201101400mmla9e>; Fri, 1 Aug 2003 23:20:11 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.elischer.org [127.0.0.1]) by InterJet.elischer.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA47535; Fri, 1 Aug 2003 16:20:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 16:20:05 -0700 (PDT) From: Julian Elischer To: deischen@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: current@freebsd.org cc: David Xu cc: Marcel Moolenaar Subject: Re: NVidia glx stuff dies in sysarch(I386_SET_LDT, ...) X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2003 23:20:27 -0000 On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Daniel Eischen wrote: > On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 06:51:33PM -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote: > > > > > > LUCODE_SEL is used by kernel to load _ucodesel to user %cs > > > > LUDATA_SEL is used by kernel to load _udatasel to user %ds, %es, %fs, %gs. > > > > I didn't check other ABIs, but setting to a fixed location of LDT in userland > > > > is also a bad idea, I think it will conflict with thread library soon, > > > > it is better to use dynamic allocating facility newly added in i386_set_ldt. > > > > > > Perhaps we need to rethink the interface and disallow > > > specification of any ldt; only allow dynamic. We would > > > need a different method of setting an array of them, though. > > > > Why not allow setting a specific entry when it's currently unused > > and not reserved by us? > > We can simply fail if the process is trying to set a LDT entry that's > > currently being used or is reserved by us. The only case that causes > > problems is when an existing LDT entry is overwritten by another > > consumer. > > That's what I was worried about. Once an application or > library is written to use specific LDTs, you never know > how it will be affected by the use of threading libraries > (or other libraries using threads). > > I can see the need to keep the old behavoir for compatibility's > sake. How about we complain loudly on the console when it's done.. (for the first few times) (with info on how to do it right) > > -- > Dan Eischen > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >