On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 16:03:05 -0700 Alexei Starovoitov <[email protected]> wrote:
> I don't understand what you're trying to say. > Are we still discussing your patch or something else? > If your patch then, I said, I'm not against it. I just don't see > a value in it. Since you're agree that regs_get_kernel_argument() > is misleading then what's the point of the patch? I agree that it can be meaningless, but it can also be useful for debugging purposes. It works just fine on x86_32 (even when you access 4 or more arguments). One just needs to understand the arch (as a long long will be broken up across "two" arguments). But even that is really useful for finding out what's going on. > To make mini-SAVE_REGS version? For what kind of use case? If the types of the arguments are known, and you have a mini-SAVE_REGS, can't you still get the true arguments? -- Steve
