Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 16 Aug 2001 11:29:05 +0100 | From | Russell King <> | Subject | Re: 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/
| |