[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:0.208 / U:2.904 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site