[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:0.023 / U:6.492 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site