Re: [PATCH 1/2] teach tracehook_report_syscall_exit() to handle stepping

2009-11-09 Thread Roland McGrath
> > I think for an arch_has_* #ifdef it is normal to make them uppercase. > > Anyway, those naming details can get upstream feedback when you post. > > OK. ARCH_HAS_SINGLE_STEP_INFO ? I think the convention is ARCH_HAS_FOO where foo is the exact name sans "arch_" of the actual function name. Ano

Re: [PATCH 1/2] teach tracehook_report_syscall_exit() to handle stepping

2009-11-09 Thread Oleg Nesterov
I think this answers my questions in the previous email I sent. On 11/09, Roland McGrath wrote: > > I wouldn't make the behavior conditional on the arch hook's definition. I > think a consistent change to a real SIGTRAP signal is better for any arch. > Until each arch defines the hook, it can jus

Re: [PATCH 1/2] teach tracehook_report_syscall_exit() to handle stepping

2009-11-09 Thread Roland McGrath
I wouldn't make the behavior conditional on the arch hook's definition. I think a consistent change to a real SIGTRAP signal is better for any arch. Until each arch defines the hook, it can just get the default siginfo_t contents of 0-fill. This arch hook is purely for the single-step case. For

[PATCH 1/2] teach tracehook_report_syscall_exit() to handle stepping

2009-11-08 Thread Oleg Nesterov
Preparation, no changes in compiled code. Currently tracehook_report_syscall_exit() ignores "int step" argument. Each architecture has to implement the stepping itself in the low-level code, and the behaviour is not consistent across different machines. Change tracehook_report_syscall_exit() to h