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 without ifdef's.
>
> I don't understand the intent of breaking the existing arch's first at all.
This patch ("change callers to use step = 0") can't break arch's ?
Currently tracehook_report_syscall_exit() ignores "int step" argument,
the patch doesn't change the compiled code at all.
> Just leave them alone. When the arch hook is not defined, just 0-fill the
> siginfo_t.
Not sure I understand. You mean, if arch hook is not defined, we add
the default arch_fill_sigtrap_info (or whatever) which only sets si_signo?
> If you do the patches in the right order, then there will never
> even be a tree state where powerpc et al get any change at all before the
> final one.
I am confused again. If we do the above, then powerpc's behaviour will
be changed iimediately? Not only powerpcs. parisc, ia64, etc.
To clarify, of course I agree with the change above, but I am afraid
I do not understand you again.
Help!
Oleg.
