[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190318174028.GE18196@e107155-lin>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2019 17:40:28 +0000
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>, jdike@...toit.com,
Steve Capper <Steve.Capper@....com>,
Haibo Xu <haibo.xu@....com>, Bin Lu <bin.lu@....com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/6] powerpc: use common ptrace_syscall_enter hook to
handle _TIF_SYSCALL_EMU
On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 06:33:41PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 03/18, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 06:20:24PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > >
> > > Again, to me this patch just makes the code look worse. Honestly, I don't
> > > think that the new (badly named) ptrace_syscall_enter() hook makes any sense.
> > >
> >
> > Worse because we end up reading current_thread_info->flags twice ?
>
> Mostly because in my opinion ptrace_syscall_enter() buys nothing but makes
> the caller's code less readable/understandable.
>
> Sure, this is subjective.
>
Based on what we have in that function today, I tend to agree. Will and
Richard were in the opinion to consolidate SYSEMU handling(in the threads
pointed in my cover letter). If there's a better way to achieve the same
I am in for it. I have just tried to put something together based on
what I could think of.
--
Regards,
Sudeep
Powered by blists - more mailing lists