On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 13:57, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > While in theory user_enable_single_step/user_disable_single_step/ > user_enable_blockstep could also be provided as an inline or macro there's no > good reason to do so, and having the prototype in one places keeps code size > and confusion down. the only annoying thing here is that we currently have to enable both user_disable_single_step() and ptrace_disable() that do exactly the same thing. i avoided this somewhat on Blackfin by cheating: #define user_disable_single_step(child) ptrace_disable(child) so now there's no code bloat. perhaps this could be moved into common linux/ptrace.h too ? > --- linux-2.6/include/linux/ptrace.h > +++ linux-2.6/include/linux/ptrace.h > @@ -238,6 +238,9 @@ > static inline void user_disable_single_step(struct task_struct *task) > { > } > +#else > +extern void user_enable_single_step(struct task_struct *); > +extern void user_disable_single_step(struct task_struct *); > #endif /* arch_has_single_step */ +#define ptrace_disable(child) user_disable_single_step(child) -mike -- 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