Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 27 Mar 2009 18:07:09 +0100 | From | Oleg Nesterov <> | Subject | Re: [patch 1/14] x86, ptrace: add arch_ptrace_report_exit |
| |
On 03/27, Metzger, Markus T wrote: > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Oleg Nesterov [mailto:oleg@redhat.com] > > > >This needs Rolan'd review. > > > >But I'd say this has nothing to do with tracehooks. And why do > >you pass *exit_code to arch_ptrace_report_exit() ? > > > >Just add arch_ptrace_report_exit(void) into do_exit() ? > > > >From the 3/14 patch: > > > > #define arch_ptrace_report_exit(code) x86_ptrace_report_exit(code) > > > > void x86_ptrace_report_exit(long exit_code) > > { > > ptrace_bts_exit(); > > } > > > >This is a bit strange. Why do we need 2 functions, ptrace_bts_exit() and > >x86_ptrace_report_exit() which just calls the first one? > > I did not want to take any shortcuts. I try to maintain the structure > general_function()->ptrace_report()->arch_ptrace_report().
I see. And honestly, this doesn't look good to me. Yes, this is subjective.
Say, Regardless of CONFIG_X86_PTRACE_BTS we have the non-empty and non-inline x86_ptrace_untrace() which just calls ptrace_bts_untrace(). And ptrace_bts_untrace() depends on CONFIG_X86_PTRACE_BTS.
But this is minor.
> Recently, tracehook_report_whatever() calls were added which either do the > ptrace work directly or call a ptrace function. I try to use those calls, where possible.
Up to Roland, but I still think tracehook_report_whatever() is not the good place for this stuff. And tracehooks will be changed soon by utrace.
In any case I don't understand why you added yet another helper, you could just add arch_ptrace_report_exit() into tracehook_report_exit().
Oleg.
| |