On 01/26, Denys Vlasenko wrote: > > On Wednesday 25 January 2012 20:36, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > > We can add the new events, > > > > PTRACE_EVENT_SYSCALL_ENTRY > > PTRACE_EVENT_SYSCALL_COMPAT_ENTRY > > PTRACE_EVENT_SYSCALL_EXIT > > PTRACE_EVENT_SYSCALL_COMPAT_EXIT > > We can get away with just the first one. > (1) It's unlikely people would want to get native sysentry events but not compat ones, > thus first two options can be combined into one; Confused... Sure, we need the single option, or we could even report this unconditionally if PT_SEIZED. I meant the different PTRACE_EVENT_* codes only. > (2) syscall exit compat-ness is known from entry type - no need to indicate it; and > (3) if we would flag syscall entry with an event value in wait status, then syscall > exit will be already distinquisable. Well, if we add _ENTRY then it looks more consistent to report _EXIT as well even if it is not that useful. Doesn't matter. Nobody seem to like this, and afaics Linus has the good arguments against the arch-independent "consolidation". Oleg. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
