Re: PTRACE_SYSEMU numbering

[Blaisorblade <blaisorblade@yahoo.it>]

On Thursday 22 September 2005 08:48, Laurent Vivier wrote:
> Hi,

> Paolo, as you are the submitter of the patch to the list and the real
> maintainer, what do you think about that ?

> Regards,
> Laurent

> > +#define PTRACE_SYSEMU 31

> >  /* 0x4200-0x4300 are reserved for architecture-independent
> > additions. */
> >  #define PTRACE_SETOPTIONS 0x4200

> > OK, I admit I could have made the comment clearer.
That's not your fault, the patch was born using those numbers, even because it 
started from 2.4.

> > But can we fix 
> > this?

> > You've added PTRACE_SYSEMU on top of PTRACE_GETFDPIC,
Ok, I see the value on frv.
> > which 
> > presumably will
> > mess up either debugging or UML on that architecture

> > (if the latter 
> > were
> > ported).
The fix is easy, IMHO, and not even urgent. It suffices to move PTRACE_SYSEMU 
def from <linux/ptrace.h> to <asm-i386/ptrace.h>, and we didn't do that yet 
for laziness only. There's no architecture that I know of, apart i386, which 
implements SYSEMU (except maybe s390, but that isn't public).
> > That's exactly the problem we defined the 0x4200-0x4300 
> > range
> > to prevent.

-- 
Inform me of my mistakes, so I can keep imitating Homer Simpson's "Doh!".
Paolo Giarrusso, aka Blaisorblade (Skype ID "PaoloGiarrusso", ICQ 215621894)
http://www.user-mode-linux.org/~blaisorblade

	

	
		
___________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB 
http://mail.yahoo.it