[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6654405.Rf26mgoaDJ@wuerfel>
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2014 15:30:52 +0100
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
"linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
"keescook@...omium.org" <keescook@...omium.org>,
"roland@...k.frob.com" <roland@...k.frob.com>,
"oleg@...hat.com" <oleg@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@...aro.org>,
"dsaxena@...aro.org" <dsaxena@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] ptrace: add generic SET_SYSCALL request
On Friday 07 November 2014 13:11:30 Will Deacon wrote:
>
> > It's not that I care strongly about the interface, my main point is
> > that the changelog doesn't describe why one interface was used instead
> > the other.
>
> I suspect the current approach was taken because it follows the same scheme
> as 32-bit ARM. If both methods are sufficient (Kees would have a better idea
> than me on that), then I don't have a strong preference.
Using the regset would probably address Oleg's comment, and would keep the
implementation architecture specific. You could even share the NT_S390_SYSTEM_CALL
number, but I don't know if there any downsides to doing that.
Arnd
--
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