Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [patch 1/14] x86, ptrace: add arch_ptrace_report_exit | From | Markus Metzger <> | Date | Fri, 27 Mar 2009 18:37:28 +0100 |
| |
On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 18:07 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > 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().
Fine with me. I did not want to add some arch_ptrace stuff in tracehook, but I can change that.
regards, markus.
| |