From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sfi-mx-4.v28.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.28.124] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by 3yr0jf1.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LnxvE-00056m-2b for user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 29 Mar 2009 16:31:44 +0000 Received: from ti-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.142.186]) by 1b2kzd1.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69) id 1LnxvB-0000Tw-LO for user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 29 Mar 2009 16:31:44 +0000 Received: by ti-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id b6so1325975tic.18 for ; Sun, 29 Mar 2009 09:31:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 00:32:28 +0800 From: =?utf-8?Q?Am=C3=A9rico?= Wang Message-ID: <20090329163228.GE7671@hack> References: <20090204080236.GA17452@cs.unibo.it> <20090310214436.GC5213@cs.unibo.it> <20090316074520.GC3360@hack> <20090324234753.GH22695@cs.unibo.it> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090324234753.GH22695@cs.unibo.it> Subject: Re: [uml-devel] [PATCH 0/2] ptrace_vm: ptrace for syscall emulation virtual machines List-Id: The user-mode Linux development list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: user-mode-linux-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net To: Renzo Davoli Cc: user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, Jeff Dike , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mtk.manpages@gmail.com, Am??rico Wang , Roland McGrath On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 12:47:53AM +0100, Renzo Davoli wrote: >> Why not introduce a new request for PTRACE_VM but use *tags* in 'addr'? >> We are taking risks of breaking the existing code. :) > >Yes, there is a minimal risk to break some code. This is a con. >On the other side there are two main pros for this proposal: >1- the code is now extremely simple Why adding a new request for ptrace is harder? I don't think so. :) >2- if we define a different tag for syscall (e.g. PTRACE_VM), we need also >different tags for PTRACE_VM_SINGLESTEP, PTRACE_VM_SINGLEBLOCK and maybe >others in the future. >Using the addr field we don't need this multiplication of tags >(and we could soon delete PTRACE_SYSEMU and PTRACE_SYSEMU_SINGLESTEP). > Yes? We could also remove PTRACE_SYSEMU* if we had PTRACE_VM to replace it. I would like to hear more from you on this point. Thanks. -- Do what you love, f**k the rest! F**k the regulations! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ User-mode-linux-devel mailing list User-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-devel