[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090311173044.GA9720@elte.hu>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 18:30:44 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: "K.Prasad" <prasad@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 00/11] Hardware Breakpoint interfaces
* K.Prasad <prasad@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 12:34:43PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Mar 2009, K.Prasad wrote:
> >
> > > The hardware breakpoint interfaces haven't been put under any CONFIG_
> > > till now, but I think we should bring them under a new config, say
> > > CONFIG_HW_BREAKPOINT. It would help create a dependancy for
> > > CONFIG_KSYM_TRACER too.
> >
> > With these patches, ptrace is dependent on hw-breakpoint.
> > You can't disable CONFIG_HW_BREAKPOINT without breaking
> > ptrace.
> >
> > Alan Stern
> >
>
> Agreed. We might have to retain the old code for ptrace and
> put the new implementation under #ifdef CONFIG_HW_BREAKPOINT
> to get them working. What do you think?
With the simple reservation mechanism i suggested i have no
problem with having HW_BREAKPOINT enabled [selected]
unconditionally on x86.
Your ptrace changes are an improvement in terms of code quality
so as long as the facility is simple and obvious, it's a step
forward.
#ifdefs are ugly and hard to maintain - especially in such a
rarely used and still critical API as ptrace.
Ingo
--
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