On Wed, 19 Mar 2008, Roland McGrath wrote: > > The arch_ptrace and compat_arch_ptrace functions can now return > -ENOSYS for requests they do not actually implement in arch > code. Hmm.. I see the whole series, and I see this patch, but I think it adds new code and new complexity, and I don't really see *why*. So I'm obviously not going to apply it outside the merge window anyway, but even for later I'd really like to know what you're building up towards, because without understanding the upsides it just feels like it adds ugly code and unnecessary infrastructure without any real point to it. And I have to say, I really hate that ret = arch_ptrace(child, request, addr, data); if (ret == -ENOSYS && !forced_successful_syscall_return()) ret = ptrace_request(child, request, addr, data); thing. Instead of doing it that ugly way (return value and a special per-arch forced_successful_syscall_return() thing), this really smells like you just want to change the calling conventions for "arch_ptrace()" instead. Wouldn't it be nicer to just let "arch_ptrace()" return a flag saying whether it handled things or not? Linus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
