> Ah. Why, why I have not thought of it?
Your mind is filled with the actual hard parts, that's why! :-)
I'm only dabbling enough to make the obvious suggestions.
> Agreed... ptrace_set_events? I agree with any naming.
Sure. I'm not really picky either, I just hate the stupid __ names.
Anythin
On 09/04, Roland McGrath wrote:
>
> > Add "int options" into struct ptrace_context. Will be used to hold
> > PT_XXX options. Currently is not used, but:
>
> IMHO the traditional PT_* bit assignments are useless.
> We should just store and use the PTRACE_O_* bits directly.
Ah. Why, why I have not t
> Add "int options" into struct ptrace_context. Will be used to hold
> PT_XXX options. Currently is not used, but:
IMHO the traditional PT_* bit assignments are useless.
We should just store and use the PTRACE_O_* bits directly.
> - introduce __ptrace_set_options() helper which updates ->option
Add "int options" into struct ptrace_context. Will be used to hold
PT_XXX options. Currently is not used, but:
- ptrace_attach_task() has a new argument, "int options". Used by
ptrace_clone_attach() which should copy the parent's options
- introduce __ptrace_set_options() helper which updates -
