Ugh. I sent the patches before I checked email.
On 11/10, Roland McGrath wrote:
Oh... this adds more naming problems. And this way x86's send_sigtrap()
can't use this helper easily.
It's true. Another approach would be to genericize send_sigtrap so that
all arch's can use it, and call
But syscall_trace_leave() uses TRAP_BRKPT on x86. Should I change 4/5 ?
Oh, I was sloppy in checking the values this time. Then probably the
default TRAP_SINGLE_STEP should be 0 instead just to make clear that every
arch needs to define it. But your other way is fine instead too.
The new
OK, how about these 2 simple patches for upstream? Then we can change
powerpc, etc.
Perhaps, instead of arch_has_fill_sigtrap_info we can start with the
patch below? Since tracehook_report_syscall_exit() is inline we can
can add the if (step) code without ifdef's.
I don't understand the
On 11/09, Roland McGrath wrote:
OK, how about these 2 simple patches for upstream? Then we can change
powerpc, etc.
Perhaps, instead of arch_has_fill_sigtrap_info we can start with the
patch below? Since tracehook_report_syscall_exit() is inline we can
can add the if (step) code
On 11/06, Roland McGrath wrote:
All that part does is move all decisions about what to do into the
tracehook/utrace/ptrace layers out of arch code.
...
After the arch/tracehook cleanup we've been discussing, what happens here
is consistent across machines.
Yes, agreed. Just I greatly
