lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Jul]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 06/19] OpenRISC: PTrace
From
Date

On Tue, 2011-07-05 at 17:42 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Saturday 02 July 2011, Jonas Bonn wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Jonas Bonn <jonas@southpole.se>
> > ---
> > arch/openrisc/include/asm/ptrace.h | 124 ++++++++
> > arch/openrisc/kernel/ptrace.c | 574 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > arch/openrisc/kernel/ptrace.h | 37 +++
> > 3 files changed, 735 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> > create mode 100644 arch/openrisc/include/asm/ptrace.h
> > create mode 100644 arch/openrisc/kernel/ptrace.c
> > create mode 100644 arch/openrisc/kernel/ptrace.h
>
> This patch still contains a bunch of commented out code that wants to be
> cleaned up. I think you have done that in most other patches that needed
> the same cleanup.
>
> Arnd

I've been looking a bit at the ptrace stuff the last couple of days.
One question that occurred to me was: is it mandatory to export the
"struct pt_regs" info in ptrace.h to userspace?

I'm not sure I like the layout of our struct pt_regs. It would be
better to lay out the registers in a way that mirrors the order that
they are saved during exception/syscall entry in order to make better
use of the cache.

Since the registers can be exported via a regset to userspace anyway
(which doesn't necessarily need to look like pt_regs), I don't see that
userspace really needs how we lay out the registers on the stack. By
not exporting pt_regs, I am free to change the layout... if it's
exported, it becomes ABI.

Comments?

/Jonas



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-07-05 18:07    [W:0.081 / U:0.208 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site