Re: [patch 1/14] x86, ptrace: add arch_ptrace_report_exit

[Markus Metzger <markus.t.metzger@googlemail.com>]

On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 18:07 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 03/27, Metzger, Markus T wrote:
> >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: Oleg Nesterov [mailto:oleg@redhat.com]
> > >
> > >This needs Rolan'd review.
> > >
> > >But I'd say this has nothing to do with tracehooks. And why do
> > >you pass *exit_code to arch_ptrace_report_exit() ?
> > >
> > >Just add arch_ptrace_report_exit(void) into do_exit() ?
> > >
> > >From the 3/14 patch:
> > >
> > >	#define arch_ptrace_report_exit(code) x86_ptrace_report_exit(code)
> > >
> > >	void x86_ptrace_report_exit(long exit_code)
> > >	{
> > >	       ptrace_bts_exit();
> > >	}
> > >
> > >This is a bit strange. Why do we need 2 functions, ptrace_bts_exit() and
> > >x86_ptrace_report_exit() which just calls the first one?
> >
> > I did not want to take any shortcuts. I try to maintain the structure
> > general_function()->ptrace_report()->arch_ptrace_report().
> 
> I see. And honestly, this doesn't look good to me. Yes, this is subjective.
> 
> Say, Regardless of CONFIG_X86_PTRACE_BTS we have the non-empty and non-inline
> x86_ptrace_untrace() which just calls ptrace_bts_untrace(). And ptrace_bts_untrace()
> depends on CONFIG_X86_PTRACE_BTS.
> 
> But this is minor.
> 
> > Recently, tracehook_report_whatever() calls were added which either do the
> > ptrace work directly or call a ptrace function. I try to use those calls, where possible.
> 
> Up to Roland, but I still think tracehook_report_whatever() is not the
> good place for this stuff. And tracehooks will be changed soon by utrace.
> 
> In any case I don't understand why you added yet another helper, you could
> just add arch_ptrace_report_exit() into tracehook_report_exit().

Fine with me.
I did not want to add some arch_ptrace stuff in tracehook, but I can
change that.

regards,
markus.