On 11/08, Roland McGrath wrote: > > That is inappropriate use of arch details in generic code. It might > happen to be harmless fritter in practice on the arch's we have but it > is certainly not the correct way to go about things. You should just > call user_disable_single_step() unconditionally. Even on an arch with > no such machinery at all that should be defined safely as a no-op (see > linux/ptrace.h). If there is some reason not to do that, please > explain it. Yes, we have arch_has_single_step. I added test_tsk_thread_flag(TIF_SINGLESTEP) check for 2 reasons: to optimize out user_disable_single_step() in the likely case, and because I wasn't sure it is safe to call user_disable_single_step() unconditionally. OK, will resend, thanks. Oleg. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
