Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 09:19:05 +0200 From: Divacky Roman <xdivac02@stud.fit.vutbr.cz> To: Boris Samorodov <bsam@ipt.ru> Cc: emulation@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [PATCH]: set_thread_area() implementation Message-ID: <20060704071905.GA98338@stud.fit.vutbr.cz> In-Reply-To: <59906509@bsam.ru> References: <20060702172959.GA4941@stud.fit.vutbr.cz> <59906509@bsam.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jul 04, 2006 at 12:19:30AM +0400, Boris Samorodov wrote: > On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 19:29:59 +0200 Divacky Roman wrote: > > > I made a patch which implementes set_threa_area() syscall in linux > > emulation layer. > > > to test pls apply: www.stud.fit.vutbr.cz/~xdivac02/tls1.patch and > > www.stud.fit.vutbr.cz/~xdivac02/tls2.patch > > Great! Those two patches were applied, compiled and installed. After > the reboot -current works fine (tested on i386, I'll try to test them > on amd64 tomorrow if needed). this doesnt touch amd64 at all, I forgot to mention it - this is i386 only because I want to get NPTL working on i386 first and then do the porting work. > > This syscall is used for TLS implementation in linux. TLS is used by > > NPTL which currently doesnt run because of missing TID stuff and > > futexes (I am working on it). I am able to pass tls_tst test > > (www.stud.fit.vutbr.cz/~xdivac02/tls_test.c) pls if you can test this > > How should I test it? if only I knew ;( the problem is that the major user of this is NPTL which requires also TID handling and futexes. I dont have this implemnented (I am currenty working on it). But I'd love to have this tested somehow. You probably want to find program which uses the set_thread_area() syscall but not the TID and futexes. bash is one of those programs (I mean its startup) maybe there are others. You can check this by "mount /proc && truss /compat/linux/program" if it contains the set_thread_area() syscall and doesnt crush its ok. If it crushes you have to check why it crashes - if its missing $something then its ok. if its the set_thread_area() syscall then its bad. But overall I think this should be ok.. I hope to have basic NPTL support done in lets say 10 days (but you know - ist not a promise) and I'll post complete patch then. But if problems happen with that patch the debuging will be harder because it will implement 3 things thnx roman
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060704071905.GA98338>