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    [W:0.022 / U:0.856 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site