From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 07:40:05 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/8] ptrace: arch_ptrace -ENOSYS return Message-Id: <20080320074005.GB19969@infradead.org> List-Id: References: <20080319211714.8B14226F995@magilla.localdomain> <20080319212024.EA03126F995@magilla.localdomain> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Roland McGrath , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , David Miller , sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, Paul Mackerras , linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Richard Henderson , tony.luck@intel.com, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 07:40:25PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > And I have to say, I really hate that > > ret = arch_ptrace(child, request, addr, data); > if (ret = -ENOSYS && !forced_successful_syscall_return()) > ret = ptrace_request(child, request, addr, data); > > thing. Instead of doing it that ugly way (return value and a special > per-arch forced_successful_syscall_return() thing), this really smells > like you just want to change the calling conventions for "arch_ptrace()" > instead. > > Wouldn't it be nicer to just let "arch_ptrace()" return a flag saying > whether it handled things or not? I think the easiest and cleanest would be to just drop this whole series. There's no inherent advantage of ret = -ENOSYS; in the arch_ptrace default case over ret = ptrace_request(...);