On Tue, 2011-07-05 at 17:42 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Saturday 02 July 2011, Jonas Bonn wrote: > > Signed-off-by: Jonas Bonn <jonas@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > arch/openrisc/include/asm/ptrace.h | 124 ++++++++ > > arch/openrisc/kernel/ptrace.c | 574 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > arch/openrisc/kernel/ptrace.h | 37 +++ > > 3 files changed, 735 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > create mode 100644 arch/openrisc/include/asm/ptrace.h > > create mode 100644 arch/openrisc/kernel/ptrace.c > > create mode 100644 arch/openrisc/kernel/ptrace.h > > This patch still contains a bunch of commented out code that wants to be > cleaned up. I think you have done that in most other patches that needed > the same cleanup. > > Arnd I've been looking a bit at the ptrace stuff the last couple of days. One question that occurred to me was: is it mandatory to export the "struct pt_regs" info in ptrace.h to userspace? I'm not sure I like the layout of our struct pt_regs. It would be better to lay out the registers in a way that mirrors the order that they are saved during exception/syscall entry in order to make better use of the cache. Since the registers can be exported via a regset to userspace anyway (which doesn't necessarily need to look like pt_regs), I don't see that userspace really needs how we lay out the registers on the stack. By not exporting pt_regs, I am free to change the layout... if it's exported, it becomes ABI. Comments? /Jonas -- 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
