Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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>