From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the ptrace tree with the s390 tree Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 10:48:20 +0200 Message-ID: <20110722084820.GG2622@htj.dyndns.org> References: <20110720153320.a7f33784158ccb04fafcb5d6@canb.auug.org.au> <20110721080240.GZ3455@htj.dyndns.org> <20110721144447.GA7580@redhat.com> <20110722080600.GE2622@htj.dyndns.org> <20110722102922.61e7e279@mschwide> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail-fx0-f52.google.com ([209.85.161.52]:64405 "EHLO mail-fx0-f52.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753242Ab1GVIsZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jul 2011 04:48:25 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110722102922.61e7e279@mschwide> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Martin Schwidefsky Cc: Oleg Nesterov , Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Heiko Carstens Hello, Martin. On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 10:29:22AM +0200, Martin Schwidefsky wrote: > I could special case ptrace with PTRACE_SINGLESTEP to return with > TRAP_TRACE instead of TRAP_HWBKPT but that would be artificial. > From the hardware perspective its the same. It's true that ptrace is more dependent on arch details than most but still part of user-facing API and maintaining API consistency should haver higher priority, so I really think we should have well defined generic set of event information all archs implement and then some arch dependent exception where absolutely necessary. The problem at this stage tho is that I don't have much idea how to divide them. Eh well, let's see how it goes. :) Thanks. -- tejun