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
(restore cc's)

On 11/24, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 09:41:52PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > 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,
>
> Yes that's the problem -- they are unnecessary obfuscation
> when you can just call directly.

This is subjective, but personally I disagree. Contrary, imho it
is good that tracehook hides the (simple) details. I do not understand
why the reader of, say, do_fork() should see the contents of
tracehook_report_clone_complete(). This will complicate the understanding.
Those people who want to understand/change fork() do not care about
utrace/ptrace usually.

And please note that it is much, much easier to change this code
when it lives in tracehooks.h instead of sched.c/signal.c/etc.

> > What is the point?
>
> Less code obfuscation.
>
> When it's a utrace call, call it a utrace call, not something else.

Why do you think this is obfuscation? Well, we can rename these
helpers, s/tracehook_/utrace_/, but I don't see how this can make
the code more readable.

Oleg.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-11-24 22:53    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans