Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 10:19:58 +0200 From: Christian Kandeler <christian.kandeler@hob.de> To: ia64@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Syscalls and RSE Message-ID: <200707021019.58451.christian.kandeler@hob.de> In-Reply-To: <23365936-A0DB-48FF-A051-2E18816FC742@mac.com> References: <200706211132.32524.christian.kandeler@hob.de> <200706290948.04330.christian.kandeler@hob.de> <23365936-A0DB-48FF-A051-2E18816FC742@mac.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Friday 29 June 2007 18:42, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > You misunderstand the point I was trying to make. While it's not > a good thing to clobber the ar.rnat register, it's a good thing > that clobbering it causes the process to fail for it means that > exit out of the kernel through the epc_syscall code path will > indeed restore the ar.rnat register that was clobbered on entry. > It simply means that the kernel exit is correct. I was taking that for granted ;) > > The way I see it, the code right now either > > a) wrongly assumes RNAT is preserved by the backing store switch > > or b) wrongly assumes RNAT does not need to be preserved. > > Both. If A then B :-) Well, I meant b) as "RNAT gets clobbered, but it doesn't matter". Which I think would actually be true if we didn't advance BSPSTORE. Regards, Christian Kandeler
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200707021019.58451.christian.kandeler>