Skip to contentSkip to conversation

backport unaligned.c Randolph patch

parisc-linux Joel Soete 3 participants 5 messages Nov 1, 2003 – Nov 3, 2003

lore
Share & tools
lore

Joel Soete

author
#0 lore raw

Hi Randolph,

Here is the backport of your unaligned.c patch:

=====

unaligned.c 2003-11-01 15:26:04.000000000 +0000 renamed from unaligned.c.SAV 2003-11-01 15:26:14.000000000 +0000 +0 -49
@@ -24,24 +24,6 @@
 #include <linux/config.h>
 #include <linux/sched.h>
 #include <linux/kernel.h>
-#include <linux/string.h>
-#include <linux/errno.h>
-#include <linux/ptrace.h>
-#include <linux/timer.h>
-#include <linux/mm.h>
-#include <linux/smp.h>
-#include <linux/smp_lock.h>
-#include <linux/spinlock.h>
-#include <linux/init.h>
-#include <linux/interrupt.h>
-#include <asm/system.h>
-#include <asm/uaccess.h>
-#include <asm/io.h>
-#include <asm/irq.h>
-#include <asm/atomic.h>
-
-#include <asm/smp.h>
-#include <asm/pdc.h>
 
 /* #define DEBUG_UNALIGNED 1 */
 

@@ -493,37 +475,6 @@
        struct siginfo si;
        register int flop=0;    /* true if this is a flop */
 
-       /* if the unaligned access is inside the kernel:
-        *   if the access is caused by a syscall, then we fault the calling
-        *     user process
-        */
-       if (!user_mode(regs))
-       {
-               const struct exception_table_entry *fix;
-
-               /* see if the offending code have its own
-                * exception handler
-                */
-
-               fix = search_exception_table(regs->iaoq[0]);
-               if (fix)
-               {
-                       /* lower bits of fix->skip are flags
-                        * upper bits are the handler addr
-                        */
-                       if (fix->skip & 1)
-                               regs->gr[8] = -EFAULT;
-                       if (fix->skip & 2)
-                               regs->gr[9] = 0;
-
-                       regs->iaoq[0] += ((fix->skip) & ~3);
-                       regs->iaoq[1] = regs->iaoq[0] + 4;
-                       regs->gr[0] &= ~PSW_B;
-
-                       return;
-               }
-       }
-
        /* log a message with pacing */
        if (user_mode(regs))
        {

=====

I check on my b2k: it compiles and boot well.

hth,
Joel

#1 lore raw
Quoted 1 line

Here is the backport of your unaligned.c patch:

I think your mailer munged your patch, it doesn't apply cleanly. i've applied a cleaned up version of your patch to 2.4.

randolph

Signature · 3 lines
Randolph Chung
Debian GNU/Linux Developer, hppa/ia64 ports
http://www.tausq.org/
#2 lore raw
Quoted 2 lines · Randolph Chung

I think your mailer munged your patch, it doesn't apply cleanly. i've applied a cleaned up version of your patch to 2.4.

Was the intent to add new code?
The patch was reversed it seems too.

grant

author
#3 lore raw

Hi Grant,

In fact I didn't discusse of this patch (which effectively remove code) with Randolph but I back-port in confidence because it remember me a problem I encounter when I suggest the "traps.c alignement" [1] to Carlos:
<http://lists.parisc-linux.org/pipermail/parisc-linux/2003-October/021229.html>

In the same time I was looking for Sukyo bug in 2.6 and point out that the previous patch [1] make hang the system in place of the crash (due to a division by zero).

May be my conclusion was erronious: "force_sig_info() would 'schedule' a SIGFPE. But in this very particular situation of the early boot, imho the scheduler is not yet launched." (Right/Wrong?)

Anyway I so suggest another patch:<http://lists.parisc-linux.org/pipermail/parisc-linux/2003-October/021251.html>

; which essentialy bypass force_sig_info() in kernel mode. But I presume that Carlos don't yet ci this patch because he is looking for a better solution in that special case (I don't know if it is possible to lauch the scheduler earlier?).

Thanks in advance for all advise,
Joel

Quoted 11 lines

-- Original Message --
From: Grant Grundler <[email protected]>
To: Randolph Chung <[email protected]>
Cc: Joel Soete <[email protected]>, [email protected]
Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2003 12:30:06 -0700
Subject: Re: [parisc-linux] Re: backport unaligned.c Randolph patch

On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 09:32:15AM -0800, Randolph Chung wrote:
I think your mailer munged your patch, it doesn't apply cleanly. i've applied a cleaned up version of your patch to 2.4.

Was the intent to add new code?
The patch was reversed it

Quoted 1 line

seems too.

grant
_______________________________________________
parisc-linux mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.parisc-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/parisc-linux

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tiscali ADSL: 3 mois GRATUITS! L'Internet rapide, c'est pour tout le monde.

http://reg.tiscali.be/default.asp?lg=fr

author
#4 lore raw
In reply to Randolph Chung
Quoted 4 lines · Randolph Chung
Quoted 1 line

Here is the backport of your unaligned.c patch:

I think your mailer munged your patch, it doesn't apply cleanly.

I don't think that mozilla was the cause but well my 'cut and past' method :(, sorry.

Quoted 4 lines

i've
applied a cleaned up version of your patch to 2.4.

randolph

Thanks a lot,
Joel