[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20071125222352.GB1597@infradead.org>
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 22:23:52 +0000
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/27] ptrace: generic resume
On Sun, Nov 25, 2007 at 02:01:09PM -0800, Roland McGrath wrote:
> This makes ptrace_request handle all the ptrace requests that wake
> up the traced task. These do low-level ptrace implementation magic
> that is not arch-specific and should be kept out of arch code. The
> implementations on each arch usually do the same thing. The new
> generic code makes use of the arch_has_single_step macro and generic
> entry points to handle PTRACE_SINGLESTEP.
Nice, I've been trying to get people to move this to common code for
a while :)
> +#ifdef PTRACE_SINGLESTEP
> +#define is_singlestep(request) ((request) == PTRACE_SINGLESTEP)
> +#else
> +#define is_singlestep(request) 0
> +#endif
> +
> +#ifdef PTRACE_SYSEMU
> +#define is_sysemu_singlestep(request) ((request) == PTRACE_SYSEMU_SINGLESTEP)
> +#else
> +#define is_sysemu_singlestep(request) 0
> +#endif
Could we by any chance just force every architecture using generic code
to implement PTRACE_SINGLESTEP and PTRACE_SYSEMU? This will lead to
both far less messy code and a more consistant user interface.
-
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