From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030273AbVIVTsc (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Sep 2005 15:48:32 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030207AbVIVTsb (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Sep 2005 15:48:31 -0400 Received: from smtp002.mail.ukl.yahoo.com ([217.12.11.33]:8075 "HELO smtp002.mail.ukl.yahoo.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1030273AbVIVTsa (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Sep 2005 15:48:30 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.it; h=Received:From:To:Subject:Date:User-Agent:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Disposition:Message-Id; b=E9nSnSBEccxeae7U9Z/PWWRK4JA+SpcKE4ZEu27FObBZAtcgjJZJO5j20qgvNO4q8ffkmYaMOC/qmd56JqVBeWr2go4UPI+uYyaLPnlQexolU2kICqOWF5LBxO2qCd8hnyZK1hBn/trH0J3q6i6Yp++rLOB80SWkU0q8VPu1mQs= ; From: Blaisorblade To: Laurent Vivier Subject: Re: PTRACE_SYSEMU numbering Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 21:46:38 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.2 Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jeff Dike , "Paolo 'Blaisorblade' Giarrusso" , Bodo Stroesser References: <20050921172550.GA10332@nevyn.them.org> <4D3DE86B-EDE9-494E-A935-A6CE9CFF1134@wanadoo.fr> In-Reply-To: <4D3DE86B-EDE9-494E-A935-A6CE9CFF1134@wanadoo.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200509222146.39172.blaisorblade@yahoo.it> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 to , 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