On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 02:50:01PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Thu, 20 Mar 2008, Roland McGrath wrote: > > > Wouldn't it be nicer to just let "arch_ptrace()" return a flag saying > > > whether it handled things or not? > > > > It would certainly be nicer. I would prefer: > > > > extern int arch_ptrace(struct task_struct *child, long request, > > long addr, long data, long *retval); > > > > where it returns an error code or it returns 0 and *retval is the value > > or it returns 1 and it didn't do anything. > > > > So this ugliness seemed like a better bet than waiting for 20 more > > arch sign-offs before any of it could go in. You are certainly in a > > position to just change the generic signature and make every arch do > > the update (or fix your typos if you just tweak them all blind), and > > let them grumble. I did not presume to do so. > > What about adding a CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_PTRACE2, which is set by the archs > which are converted. For those which are not you add a fallback > implementation: HAVE_PTRACE2 or at least following the HAVE_* semnatic. And then do: config HAVE_PTRACE2 def_bool n In some common file. Then arch files can do: config X86 ... + select HAVE_PTRACE2 Sam -- 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
