![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Hi, there is no problem for me. Paolo, as you are the submitter of the patch to the list and the real maintainer, what do you think about that ? Regards, Laurent Le 21 sept. 05 à 19:25, Daniel Jacobowitz a écrit : > Here's a bit of the PTRACE_SYSEMU patch, committed three weeks ago: >> --- a/include/linux/ptrace.h> +++ b/include/linux/ptrace.h> @@ -20,6 +20,7 @@> #define PTRACE_DETACH 0x11 > #define PTRACE_SYSCALL 24 > +#define PTRACE_SYSEMU 31 > > /* 0x4200-0x4300 are reserved for architecture-independent > additions. */ > #define PTRACE_SETOPTIONS 0x4200 > > OK, I admit I could have made the comment clearer. But can we fix > this? > You've added PTRACE_SYSEMU on top of PTRACE_GETFDPIC, which > presumably will > mess up either debugging or UML on that architecture (if the latter > were > ported). That's exactly the problem we defined the 0x4200-0x4300 > range > to prevent. > > -- > Daniel Jacobowitz > CodeSourcery, LLC > Laurent Vivier LaurentVivier@wanadoo.fr - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | |||||||||
| Last update: 2005-09-22 06:51 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | ||||||||||