On 05/22/2014 10:38 AM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> I agree.
>
>> >
>> > Maybe we should leave this for another day, and have tm_spr_active
>> > return 0 instead of -ENODEV when the machine doesn't have the hardware,
>> > or not install that hook at all. Seems like the effect will be the same,
>>
On Tue, 2014-05-13 at 18:21 +0100, Pedro Alves wrote:
> I wonder whether people are getting Roland's address from?
>
> It's frequent that ptrace related patches end up CCed to
> rol...@redhat.com, but, he's not been at Red Hat for a few years
> now. Roland, do you still want to be CCed on ptrace-
On 05/20/2014 04:03 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 05/20/2014 09:14 AM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>> On 05/19/2014 08:13 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
>>> On 05/19/2014 12:46 PM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>>
>> I couldn't actually find any arch that currently returns -ENODEV in
>> the "active" hook.
On 05/20/2014 09:14 AM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> On 05/19/2014 08:13 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
>> On 05/19/2014 12:46 PM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>
> I couldn't actually find any arch that currently returns -ENODEV in
> the "active" hook. I see that binfmt_elf.c doesn't handle
> regse
On 05/19/2014 08:13 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 05/19/2014 12:46 PM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>
I couldn't actually find any arch that currently returns -ENODEV in
the "active" hook. I see that binfmt_elf.c doesn't handle
regset->active() returning < 0. Guess that may be why. Loo
On 05/19/2014 12:46 PM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>> > I couldn't actually find any arch that currently returns -ENODEV in
>> > the "active" hook. I see that binfmt_elf.c doesn't handle
>> > regset->active() returning < 0. Guess that may be why. Looks like
>> > something that could be cleaned up
On 05/15/2014 05:38 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 05/15/2014 09:25 AM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>> On 05/14/2014 04:45 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
>>> On 05/14/14 06:46, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
On 05/13/2014 10:43 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 05/05/14 08:54, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>> This p
On 05/15/2014 05:38 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 05/15/2014 09:25 AM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>> On 05/14/2014 04:45 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
>>> On 05/14/14 06:46, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
On 05/13/2014 10:43 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 05/05/14 08:54, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>> This p
> So in sum, it very much looks like the intention is for
> PTRACE_GETREGSET/PTRACE_SETREGSET to return ENODEV in the
> case the regset doesn't exist on the running machine, and then
> it looks like at least x86 works that way.
Good point... agreed. We should ENODEV when we don't have TM hardware
On 05/15/2014 09:25 AM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> On 05/14/2014 04:45 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
>> On 05/14/14 06:46, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>> On 05/13/2014 10:43 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
On 05/05/14 08:54, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> This patch enables get and set of transactional memory r
On 05/14/2014 04:45 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 05/14/14 06:46, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>> On 05/13/2014 10:43 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
>>> On 05/05/14 08:54, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
This patch enables get and set of transactional memory related register
sets through PTRACE_GETREGSET/PTRA
On 05/14/14 12:18, Michael Neuling wrote:
>
>> s390 actually screwed that, though it got away because
>> there's a bit in HWCAP to signal transactions support. See:
>>
>> https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2013-11/msg00080.html
>>
>> Are you adding something to HWCAP too?
>
> Yes but it's in
On 05/14/14 06:46, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> On 05/13/2014 10:43 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
>> On 05/05/14 08:54, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>> This patch enables get and set of transactional memory related register
>>> sets through PTRACE_GETREGSET/PTRACE_SETREGSET interface by implementing
>>> four n
On 05/13/2014 10:51 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> I wonder whether people are getting Roland's address from?
>
> It's frequent that ptrace related patches end up CCed to
> rol...@redhat.com, but, he's not been at Red Hat for a few years
> now. Roland, do you still want to be CCed on ptrace-related
> i
On 05/13/2014 10:43 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 05/05/14 08:54, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>> This patch enables get and set of transactional memory related register
>> sets through PTRACE_GETREGSET/PTRACE_SETREGSET interface by implementing
>> four new powerpc specific register sets i.e REGSET_TM_SP
I wonder whether people are getting Roland's address from?
It's frequent that ptrace related patches end up CCed to
rol...@redhat.com, but, he's not been at Red Hat for a few years
now. Roland, do you still want to be CCed on ptrace-related
issues? If so, there's probably a script somewhere in t
On 05/05/14 08:54, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> This patch enables get and set of transactional memory related register
> sets through PTRACE_GETREGSET/PTRACE_SETREGSET interface by implementing
> four new powerpc specific register sets i.e REGSET_TM_SPR, REGSET_TM_CGPR,
> REGSET_TM_CFPR, REGSET_CVMX
This patch enables get and set of transactional memory related register
sets through PTRACE_GETREGSET/PTRACE_SETREGSET interface by implementing
four new powerpc specific register sets i.e REGSET_TM_SPR, REGSET_TM_CGPR,
REGSET_TM_CFPR, REGSET_CVMX support corresponding to these following new
ELF co
18 matches
Mail list logo
