[lkml]   [2011]   [Sep]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Why I want PTRACE_O_TRACESTOP option
Hello, Denys.

On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 06:50:01PM +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> Consider what will happen when a next ptrace fix will require
> a way to change ptrace API at runtime. A new option will likely
> be introduced, say, PTRACE_O_TRACEPONY, with next available
> bit position 7, and perhaps some new event will be generated,
> PTRACE_EVENT_PONY, with value.... yes, it can't be 7,
> PTRACE_EVENT_STOP took it. So it will probably be 8.

Then, just give it the next matching number.

If options naturally happen to match the events, that's a nice
coincidence. If the real life requirement deviates from the beautiful
one-to-one mapping, then, so be it. No, the magical contiguous one to
one mapping isn't the most important design concern.

To me, the rationale presented here almost argues against



 \ /
  Last update: 2011-09-09 02:21    [W:0.230 / U:35.972 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site