From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [18.85.46.34]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 81657DDE16 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 18:40:27 +1100 (EST) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 03:40:05 -0400 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/8] ptrace: arch_ptrace -ENOSYS return Message-ID: <20080320074005.GB19969@infradead.org> References: <20080319211714.8B14226F995@magilla.localdomain> <20080319212024.EA03126F995@magilla.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, tony.luck@intel.com, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, David Miller , linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Thomas Gleixner , sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, Paul Mackerras , Andrew Morton , Ingo Molnar , Roland McGrath , Richard Henderson List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , 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(...);