[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080320074005.GB19969@infradead.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 03:40:05 -0400
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org,
Richard Henderson <rth@...ddle.net>, tony.luck@...el.com,
linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/8] ptrace: arch_ptrace -ENOSYS return
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 07:40:25PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> And I have to say, I really hate that
>
> ret = arch_ptrace(child, request, addr, data);
> if (ret == -ENOSYS && !forced_successful_syscall_return())
> ret = ptrace_request(child, request, addr, data);
>
> thing. Instead of doing it that ugly way (return value and a special
> per-arch forced_successful_syscall_return() thing), this really smells
> like you just want to change the calling conventions for "arch_ptrace()"
> instead.
>
> Wouldn't it be nicer to just let "arch_ptrace()" return a flag saying
> whether it handled things or not?
I think the easiest and cleanest would be to just drop this whole
series. There's no inherent advantage of
ret = -ENOSYS;
in the arch_ptrace default case over
ret = ptrace_request(...);
--
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