Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 18 Jul 2008 01:50:59 +0400 | From | Alexey Dobriyan <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 01/23] tracehook: add linux/tracehook.h |
| |
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 01:06:52PM +0200, Petr Tesarik wrote: > On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 12:48 +0400, Alexey Dobriyan wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 12:27:55AM -0700, Roland McGrath wrote: > > > The aim is to formalize and consolidate all the places that the core > > > kernel code and the arch code now ties into the ptrace implementation. > > > > > > These patches mostly don't cause any functional change. They just > > > move the details of ptrace logic out of core code into tracehook.h > > > inlines, where they are mostly compiled away to the same as before. > > > > > All that changes is that everything is thoroughly documented > > > > This is fine. > > > > > and any future reworking of ptrace, or addition of something new, > > > would not have to touch core code all over, just change the tracehook.h > > > inlines. > > > > And this is suprising wish given one can't predict how exactly those > > "future reworking" will look like. > > > > > The new linux/ptrace.h inlines are used by the following patches in the > > > new tracehook_*() inlines. Using these helpers for the ptrace event > > > stops makes it simple to change or disable the old ptrace implementation > > > of these stops conditionally later. > > > > Call them "utrace_*" from the start? > > Ah, maybe justified, because I don't expect any other re-implementation > of the same after utrace is finished, but -- there's still the old > ptrace implementation, so _not_ mentioning utrace seems a bit better to > me.
ptrace(2) will start calling utrace_* hooks and functions.
These tracehooks are generic and utrace is generic as well.
| |