diff options
author | Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> | 2010-03-11 00:22:46 +0100 |
---|---|---|
committer | Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> | 2010-03-13 00:52:38 +0100 |
commit | dacbe41f776db0a5a9aee1e41594f405c95778a5 (patch) | |
tree | f6cb1436bd50a2572b7c5b44d44044be0e8005bd /arch/frv/include | |
parent | ptrace: use ptrace_request() in the remaining architectures (diff) | |
download | linux-dacbe41f776db0a5a9aee1e41594f405c95778a5.tar.xz linux-dacbe41f776db0a5a9aee1e41594f405c95778a5.zip |
ptrace: move user_enable_single_step & co prototypes to linux/ptrace.h
While in theory user_enable_single_step/user_disable_single_step/
user_enable_blockstep could also be provided as an inline or macro there's
no good reason to do so, and having the prototype in one places keeps code
size and confusion down.
Roland said:
The original thought there was that user_enable_single_step() et al
might well be only an instruction or three on a sane machine (as if we
have any of those!), and since there is only one call site inlining
would be beneficial. But I agree that there is no strong reason to care
about inlining it.
As to the arch changes, there is only one thought I'd add to the
record. It was always my thinking that for an arch where
PTRACE_SINGLESTEP does text-modifying breakpoint insertion,
user_enable_single_step() should not be provided. That is,
arch_has_single_step()=>true means that there is an arch facility with
"pure" semantics that does not have any unexpected side effects.
Inserting a breakpoint might do very unexpected strange things in
multi-threaded situations. Aside from that, it is a peculiar side
effect that user_{enable,disable}_single_step() should cause COW
de-sharing of text pages and so forth. For PTRACE_SINGLESTEP, all these
peculiarities are the status quo ante for that arch, so having
arch_ptrace() itself do those is one thing. But for building other
things in the future, it is nicer to have a uniform "pure" semantics
that arch-independent code can expect.
OTOH, all such arch issues are really up to the arch maintainer. As
of today, there is nothing but ptrace using user_enable_single_step() et
al so it's a distinction without a practical difference. If/when there
are other facilities that use user_enable_single_step() and might care,
the affected arch's can revisit the question when someone cares about
the quality of the arch support for said new facility.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>
Acked-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Diffstat (limited to 'arch/frv/include')
-rw-r--r-- | arch/frv/include/asm/ptrace.h | 2 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 2 deletions
diff --git a/arch/frv/include/asm/ptrace.h b/arch/frv/include/asm/ptrace.h index a54b535c9e49..6bfad4cf1907 100644 --- a/arch/frv/include/asm/ptrace.h +++ b/arch/frv/include/asm/ptrace.h @@ -84,8 +84,6 @@ extern void show_regs(struct pt_regs *); #define task_pt_regs(task) ((task)->thread.frame0) #define arch_has_single_step() (1) -extern void user_enable_single_step(struct task_struct *); -extern void user_disable_single_step(struct task_struct *); #endif /* !__ASSEMBLY__ */ #endif /* __KERNEL__ */ |