lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Nov]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC,PATCH 14/14] utrace core
On 11/24, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> writes:
>
> > From: Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>
> >
> > 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)) &&
utrace_report_syscall_entry(regs))
ret = -1; // this depends on machine
instead of simply calling tracehook_report_syscall_entry().

What is the point?

But again, perhaps I misunderstood you.

Oleg.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-11-24 21:49    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans