public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
	akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arch@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH consolidate sys_ptrace
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2005 01:19:17 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20051105001917.GA11100@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <10611.1130845074@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com>

On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 11:37:54AM +0000, David Howells wrote:
> Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> wrote:
> 
> > > The sys_ptrace boilerplate code (everything outside the big switch
> > > statement for the arch-specific requests) is shared by most
> > > architectures.  This patch moves it to kernel/ptrace.c and leaves the
> > > arch-specific code as arch_ptrace.
> 
> Looks okay to me. I do have a concern about all the extra indirections we're
> acquiring by this mad rush to centralise everything. It's going to slow things
> down and consume more stack space. Is there any way we can:
> 
>  (1) Make a sys_ptrace() *jump* to arch_ptrace() instead of calling it, thus
>      obviating the extra return step.
> 
>  (2) Drop the use of lock_kernel().
> 
> Otherwise, the patch looks valid:

As BKL usage indicates this is a real slowpath.  No one cares about one
function call or less here.


  parent reply	other threads:[~2005-11-05  0:19 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2005-11-01  5:09 [PATCH consolidate sys_ptrace Christoph Hellwig
2005-11-01  5:12 ` Christoph Hellwig
2005-11-01  9:51   ` Norbert Kiesel
2005-11-01  9:58   ` Paul Mackerras
2005-11-01 10:30   ` Ralf Baechle
2005-11-01 11:37   ` David Howells
2005-11-02  4:31     ` Andrew Morton
2005-11-11 20:45       ` Blaisorblade
2005-11-05  0:19     ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2005-11-01 18:12   ` Russell King
2005-11-02 11:21   ` Paul Mundt
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2005-08-10 16:59 [PATCH] " Luck, Tony
2005-08-11  0:20 ` Stephen Rothwell
2005-08-10  8:00 Christoph Hellwig
2005-08-10  8:33 ` Martin Schwidefsky
2005-08-10  8:38   ` Christoph Hellwig
2005-08-10  8:43 ` Andi Kleen
2005-08-10  9:36 ` David Howells
2005-08-10 12:46 ` Paul Mundt
2005-08-10 13:15 ` Ralf Baechle
2005-08-10 13:28 ` Jeff Dike
2005-08-10 17:08 ` Richard Henderson
2005-08-11 10:44 ` Roman Zippel
2005-08-11 13:51   ` Christoph Hellwig
2005-08-11 16:51 ` Russell King
2005-08-11 17:32 ` Richard Henderson
2005-08-11 17:33   ` Christoph Hellwig

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20051105001917.GA11100@lst.de \
    --to=hch@lst.de \
    --cc=akpm@osdl.org \
    --cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox