On 02/10/2012 02:42 PM, Indan Zupancic wrote: >> #include <stdnak.h> > > Could you please elaborate? Is it just the stealing of eflags bits that > irks you or are there technical problems too? Yes, I will not accept that unless it gets ok'd by the architecture people, which may take a long time. > I understand some people would prefer a new regset, but that would force > everyone to use PTRACE_GETREGSET instead of whatever they are using now. > The problem with that is that not all archs support PTRACE_GETREGSET, so > the user space ptrace code needs to use different ptrace calls depending > on the architecture for no good reason. If PEEK_USER works then it's less > of a problem, then it's one extra ptrace call compared to the eflag way > if PTRACE_GETREGS is used. If this new info is exposed with a special > regset instead of being appended to normal regs then one extra ptrace > call per system call event needs to be done. You can as well add special > x86 ptrace requests then. Seriously... if you're mucking with registers on this level, youan architecture dependency is not a big deal, and perhaps it's a good sign that the laggard architectures need to catch up. If multiple ptrace requests is a problem, then perhaps this is a good sign that we need a single way to get multiple regsets in a single request? > Or is the main advantage of using a regset that it shows up in coredumps? > That would merit the extra effort at least. That is another plus, which is significant, too. The final advantage is expandability. -hpa -- H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf. -- 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
