Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 1 Feb 1999 11:06:48 +0100
From:      Ladavac Marino <mladavac@metropolitan.at>
To:        "'John Saunders'" <john.saunders@nlc.net.au>, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Cc:        Dan Swartzendruber <dswartz@druber.com>
Subject:   RE: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)
Message-ID:  <97A8CA5BF490D211A94F0000F6C2E55D09752A@s-lmh-wi-900.corpnet.at>

next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> -----Original Message-----
> From:	John Saunders [SMTP:john.saunders@nlc.net.au]
> Sent:	Monday, February 01, 1999 10:53 AM
> To:	freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
> Cc:	Dan Swartzendruber
> Subject:	Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)
> 
> In nlc.lists.freebsd-current you wrote:
> > At 12:09 PM 2/1/99 +1100, Gregory Bond wrote:
> >>> "You are not supposed to understand this."
> 
> "You are not expected to understand this."
> 
> 
> It's inside the swtch() function call. Just having a quick look now.
> 
> Inside expand(), where core is allocated for a process, if no core is
> available the process is swapped out with a call to xswap(), then
> switched out with a call to swtch(). When core becomes available and
> the process image is read in from swap, the process will be selected
> by swtch() to become runnable. However with the current context,
> swtch()
> would return and the tail end of the expand() function would execute.
> So inside expand() a call is made to save the stack state so that when
> swtch() restores this state, the return skips over the expand()
> function
> entirely.
> 
	[ML]  I don't understand that.  But, then again, I am not
supposed to :)

	P.S I did understand it, but it was too good an opportunitiy to
miss.

	/Marino 

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?97A8CA5BF490D211A94F0000F6C2E55D09752A>