[lkml]   [2002]   [Dec]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] compatibility syscall layer (lets try again)

    On Fri, 6 Dec 2002, Linus Torvalds wrote:
    > I just pushed my version of the system call restart code to the BK trees.
    > It's losely based on Georges code, but subtly different. Also, I didn't
    > actually update any actual system calls to use it, I just did the
    > infrastructure.

    I did the nanosleep() implementation using the new infrastructure now, and
    am pushing it out as I write this.

    Ironically (considering the origin of the thread), this actually _breaks_
    the kernel/compat.c nanosleep handling, since the restarting really needs
    to know the type for "struct timespec", and the common "do_nanosleep()"
    was just too stupid and limited to be able to do restarting sanely.

    Compat people can hopefully fix it up. Either by just copying the
    nanosleep function and not even trying to share code, or by making the
    restart function be a function pointer argument to a new and improved
    common "do_nanosleep()".

    It's been tested, and the only problem I found (which is kind of
    fundamental) is that if the system call gets interrupted by a signal and
    restarted, and then later returns successfully, the partial restart will
    have updated the "remaining time" field to whatever was remaining when the
    restart was started.

    That could be fixed by making the restart block contain not just the
    restart pointer, but also a "no restart possible" pointer, which would be
    the one called if the signal handler logic ended up returning -EINTR.

    It's a trivial extension, and possibly worth it regardless (it might be
    useful for other system call cases too that may want to undo some
    reservation or whatever), but I would like to hear from the standards
    lawyers whether POSIX/SuS actually cares or not. George?


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:31    [W:0.023 / U:32.348 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site