Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 10:56:24 +0930 From: Greg Lehey <grog@FreeBSD.org> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: Gersh <gersh@sonn.com>, Bernd Walter <ticso@mail.cicely.de>, Anjali Kulkarni <anjali@indranetworks.com>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: setjmp/longjmp Message-ID: <20011001105624.C31215@wantadilla.lemis.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0109281010570.71138-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>; from julian@elischer.org on Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 10:12:14AM -0700 References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0109280834410.57111-100000@tabby.sonn.com> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0109281010570.71138-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[Format recovered--see http://www.lemis.com/email/email-format.html] On Friday, 28 September 2001 at 10:12:14 -0700, Julian Elischer wrote: > On Fri, 28 Sep 2001, Gersh wrote: >> On Fri, 28 Sep 2001, Bernd Walter wrote: >>> On Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 07:03:51PM +0530, Anjali Kulkarni wrote: >>>> Does anyone know whether it is advisable or not to use >>>> setjmp/longjmp within kernel code? I could not see any >>>> setjmp/longjmp in kernel source code. Is there a good reason for >>>> this or can it be used? >>> >>> You need to look again, it's used in several places in the kernel. >> >> Look at sys/i386/i386/db_interface.c > > Yeah but it would probably be a pretty bad idea to use it without > very careful thought. Especialy with the kernel becoming > pre-emptable in the future.. Can you think of a scenario where it wouldn't work? Preemption doesn't tear stacks apart, right? Greg -- When replying to this message, please take care not to mutilate the original text. For more information, see http://www.lemis.com/email.html See complete headers for address and phone numbers To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20011001105624.C31215>