Sorry for the delay in replying.
> Why copy_regset_to_user() takes whole "view" (regardless of value of this
> concept) but not just needed regset?
To be honest, it was mostly just following the old utrace_regset interface
without a great deal of new thought. Part of the original logic there was
to discourage direct access to the regset functions without having made the
utrace_regset call right before, because it does wait_task_inactive and
covers up the implementation details of the important semantics that has.
That is not relevant to the integration of user_regset in upstream ptrace,
which is probably all that copy_regset_{to,from}_user will ever be for.
But I do think this is the more convenient interface.
The struct user_regset pointers not directly accessible,
so every use would be &...view()->regets[n] anyway.
> REGSET_XFP is X-FP while all documentation and previous code name it FP-X.
I decided NT_PRXFPREG was the name to follow. I consider the PTRACE_*
request names "legacy" rather than a definitive model to follow. Aside
from that, the ELF note types (NT_* macros) are the only names around to
match that are used in an existing userland API. So I figured following
the public name for the implementation functions would probably be the most
clear in the long run.
Thanks,
Roland
