On 11/07, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: > > --- a/arch/arm/kernel/ptrace.c > +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/ptrace.c > @@ -853,11 +853,6 @@ long arch_ptrace(struct task_struct *child, long request, > datap); > break; > > - case PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL: > - task_thread_info(child)->syscall = data; > - ret = 0; > - break; > - > #ifdef CONFIG_CRUNCH > case PTRACE_GETCRUNCHREGS: > ret = ptrace_getcrunchregs(child, datap); > diff --git a/kernel/ptrace.c b/kernel/ptrace.c > index 54e7522..d7048fa 100644 > --- a/kernel/ptrace.c > +++ b/kernel/ptrace.c > @@ -1001,6 +1001,12 @@ int ptrace_request(struct task_struct *child, long > request, > break; > } > #endif > + > +#ifdef PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL > + case PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL: > + ret = syscall_set_nr(child, task_pt_regs(child), data); > + break; > +#endif
I too do not understand why it makes sense to move PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL into the common kernel/ptrace.c. To me the fact that PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL can be undefined and syscall_set_nr() is very much arch-dependant (but most probably trivial) means that this code should live in arch_ptrace(). In any case, I think it doesn't make sense to pass task_pt_regs(child), this helper can do this itself if it needs struct pt_regs. Oleg. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
