Prev: linux-next: build warning after merge of usb tree
Next: mxc: Fix Drive Strength Field in the IOMUX controller
From: Mike Frysinger on 3 Feb 2010 03:50
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 13:57, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> 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.

the only annoying thing here is that we currently have to enable both
user_disable_single_step() and ptrace_disable() that do exactly the
same thing. i avoided this somewhat on Blackfin by cheating:
#define user_disable_single_step(child) ptrace_disable(child)

so now there's no code bloat. perhaps this could be moved into common
linux/ptrace.h too ?

> --- linux-2.6/include/linux/ptrace.h
> +++ linux-2.6/include/linux/ptrace.h
> @@ -238,6 +238,9 @@
>  static inline void user_disable_single_step(struct task_struct *task)
>  {
>  }
> +#else
> +extern void user_enable_single_step(struct task_struct *);
> +extern void user_disable_single_step(struct task_struct *);
>  #endif /* arch_has_single_step */

+#define ptrace_disable(child) user_disable_single_step(child)
-mike
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: linux-next: build warning after merge of usb tree
Next: mxc: Fix Drive Strength Field in the IOMUX controller