[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070305164951.GA2909@infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 16:49:51 +0000
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
Prasanna S Panchamukhi <prasanna@...ibm.com>,
5B 5B Kernel development list
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] hwbkpt: Hardware breakpoints (was Kwatch)
On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 11:16:48AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> > Making this unconditional is pointless and just makes things harder to
> > read, so please don't do it. (The same is true for utrace, but Roland
> > has unfortunately still not replied to my mail mentioning it :P)
>
> Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying. I would think that making
> it _conditional_ would make things harder to read, because of all the
> extra "#ifdef" and "#endif" lines plus the need to keep two different
> versions of the code in mind.
>
> Did you mean to say "conditional" instead of "unconditional"?
Yes, I did mean that. Sorry for the confusion :)
> Incidentally, I do believe that for certain applications (embedded
> devices, for instance) it makes sense to avoid including all this code.
> The cleanest way to do that would be to make both PTRACE and UTRACE
> configurable.
PTRACE configurable makes a lot of sense, especially as we want to get
rid of it very long term. Making UTRACE configurable aswel as all
these tracehooks wrappers just make the code utterly unreadable.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists