Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 01:08:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> To: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> Cc: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Subject: Re: Implementing TLS: step 1 Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10306200105140.23-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com> In-Reply-To: <20030620041234.GA28472@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 11:57:04PM -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> >
> > I'm not too sure about the kernel code. If you have KSEs
> > working for libthr, then I assume there is very little extra
> > kernel code needed. You do need to have get_mcontext() and
> > set_mcontext() implemented in machdep.c, though. It looks
> > like you do (although nothing is done with clear_ret in
> > get_mcontext()).
>
> Yes, {g|s}et_mcontext() are implemented, as is makecontext(3).
>
> We cannot do anything with clear_ret, because it's based on
> assumptions that don't hold in ia64.
How do return values from syscalls get passed back?
> BTW: there's no race that can't be plugged if TP doesn't point
> to the mailbox. All we need is an atomic compare-exchange and
> a retry loop...
Ok, the only problem might be something being deallocated
out from under you. For instance, a KSE goes away (gets
deallocated) while your thread is continued on another
KSE and you are still dereferencing something that may no
longer be valid.
--
Dan Eischen
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.10.10306200105140.23-100000>