[lkml]   [2009]   [Nov]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [RFC,PATCH 14/14] utrace core
    On 11/24, Andi Kleen wrote:
    > Oleg Nesterov <> writes:
    > > From: Roland McGrath <>
    > >
    > > This adds the utrace facility, a new modular interface in the kernel
    > > for implementing user thread tracing and debugging. This fits on top
    > > of the tracehook_* layer, so the new code is well-isolated.
    > Could we just drop the tracehook layer if this finally merged
    > and call the low level functions directly?

    Not sure I understand. Tracehooks are trivial inline wrappers on
    top utrace calls,

    > It might have been reasonably early on when it was still out of tree,
    > but longer term when it's integrated having strange opaque hooks
    > like that just makes the coder harder to read and maintain.

    Well, I don't think the code will be better if we remove tracehooks.

    For example. tracehook_report_syscall_entry() has a lot of callers
    in arch/, each callsite should be changed to do

    if ((task_utrace_flags(current) & UTRACE_EVENT(SYSCALL_ENTRY)) &&
    ret = -1; // this depends on machine

    instead of simply calling tracehook_report_syscall_entry().

    What is the point?

    But again, perhaps I misunderstood you.


     \ /
      Last update: 2009-11-24 21:49    [W:0.020 / U:2.508 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site