| Message ID | 20200724064509.331-14-alex.bennee@linaro.org |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | candidate fixes for 5.1-rc1 (testing, semihosting, OOM tcg, x86 fpu) | expand |
On 7/23/20 11:45 PM, Alex Bennée wrote: > From: Laurent Vivier <laurent@vivier.eu> > > Our safe_clock_nanosleep() returns -1 and updates errno. > > We don't need to update the CRF bit in syscall.c because it will > be updated in ppc/cpu_loop.c as the return value is negative. > > Signed-off-by: Laurent Vivier <laurent@vivier.eu> > Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org> > Message-Id: <20200722174612.2917566-3-laurent@vivier.eu> > --- > linux-user/syscall.c | 7 ------- > 1 file changed, 7 deletions(-) Reviewed-by: Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org> r~
diff --git a/linux-user/syscall.c b/linux-user/syscall.c index 43a6e283961..f5c4f6b95db 100644 --- a/linux-user/syscall.c +++ b/linux-user/syscall.c @@ -11840,13 +11840,6 @@ static abi_long do_syscall1(void *cpu_env, int num, abi_long arg1, host_to_target_timespec(arg4, &ts); } -#if defined(TARGET_PPC) - /* clock_nanosleep is odd in that it returns positive errno values. - * On PPC, CR0 bit 3 should be set in such a situation. */ - if (ret && ret != -TARGET_ERESTARTSYS) { - ((CPUPPCState *)cpu_env)->crf[0] |= 1; - } -#endif return ret; } #endif