From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1423030AbXD3Ftk (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Apr 2007 01:49:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1423037AbXD3Ftk (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Apr 2007 01:49:40 -0400 Received: from ozlabs.org ([203.10.76.45]:32959 "EHLO ozlabs.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1423030AbXD3Ftj (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Apr 2007 01:49:39 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <17973.33249.852991.342860@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 15:42:57 +1000 From: Paul Mackerras To: Anton Blanchard Cc: David Woodhouse , linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Incorrect order of last two arguments of ptrace for requests PPC_PTRACE_GETREGS, SETREGS, GETFPREGS, SETFPREGS In-Reply-To: <20061204215825.GB22514@krispykreme> References: <453F421A.6070507@in.ibm.com> <1164220580.12365.8.camel@hades.cambridge.redhat.com> <20061204215825.GB22514@krispykreme> X-Mailer: VM 7.19 under Emacs 21.4.1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Anton Blanchard writes: > I looked at this a while ago and my decision at the time was to keep the > old implementation around for a while and create two new ones that match > the x86 numbering: > > #define PTRACE_GETREGS 12 > #define PTRACE_SETREGS 13 > #define PTRACE_GETFPREGS 14 > #define PTRACE_SETFPREGS 15 > > I hate gratuitous differences, each ptrace app ends up with a sea of > ifdefs. > > Also I think it would be worth changing getregs/setregs to grab the > entire pt_regs structure. Otherwise most ops (gdb, strace etc) will just > have to make multiple ptrace calls to get the nia etc. Did you do a patch to do that? Paul.