lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Oct]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH RESEND v3 09/24] ptrace: cleanup arch_ptrace() on frv
Namhyung Kim wrote:
> 2010-10-02 (토), 12:57 +0900, Namhyung Kim:
>> 2010-10-02 (토), 03:18 +0000, Daniel K.:
>>> Namhyung Kim wrote:
>>>> case PTRACE_POKEUSR: /* write the word at location addr in the USER area */
>>>> ret = -EIO;
>>> - if ((addr & 3) || addr < 0)
>>> + if (addr & 3)
>>> break;
>>>
>>>> - ret = 0;
>>>> - switch (addr >> 2) {
>>>> + switch (regno) {
>>>> case 0 ... PT__END - 1:
>>>> - ret = put_reg(child, addr >> 2, data);
>>>> - break;
>>>> -
>>>> - default:
>>>> - ret = -EIO;
>>>> + ret = put_reg(child, regno, data);
>>>> break;
>>>> }
>>>> break;
>>> With this, you remove the default case, and no longer return -EIO in the
>>> cases of PT__END + n, as in the PTRACE_PEEKUSR section above.
>>>
>>> This is a change of behaviour as far as I can tell, and not just a cleanup.
>
> It would not be a change of behaviour. Because 'ret' was initialized
> with -EIO and only changed in the switch case. So assignment before
> switch can be removed and then will return -EIO in default case.

You are right, I was thrown by the piles of needless code here.

In fact, the whole switch can now be replaced with:

if (regno < PT__END)
ret = put_reg(child, regno, data);
but it is perhaps better to use the switch-style, for symmetry with
the PTRACE_PEEKUSR case directly above it?


Sorry to cause alarm.


Daniel K.
--
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: 2010-10-03 22:25    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site