lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Aug]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: How should nano_sleep be fixed (was: ptrace(), fork(), sleep(), exit(), SIGCHLD)
On Thu, Aug 16, 2001 at 12:17:46PM +0200, christophe barbé wrote:
> > asmlinkage long sys_nanosleep(struct timespec *rqtp, struct timespec
> > *rmtp)
> > {
> > struct timespec t;
> > unsigned long expire;
> > + struct pt_regs * regs = (struct pt_regs *) &rqtp;

Note also that this is bogus as an architecture invariant.

On ARM, we have to pass a pt_regs pointer into any function that requires
it.

--
Russell King (rmk@arm.linux.org.uk) The developer of ARM Linux
http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/personal/aboutme.html

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:57    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site