Re: [RFC] hwbkpt: Hardware breakpoints (was Kwatch)

[Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>]

On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 11:16:48AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> > Making this unconditional is pointless and just makes things harder to
> > read, so please don't do it.  (The same is true for utrace, but Roland
> > has unfortunately still not replied to my mail mentioning it :P)
> 
> Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying.  I would think that making
> it _conditional_ would make things harder to read, because of all the
> extra "#ifdef" and "#endif" lines plus the need to keep two different
> versions of the code in mind.
> 
> Did you mean to say "conditional" instead of "unconditional"?

Yes, I did mean that.  Sorry for the confusion :)

> Incidentally, I do believe that for certain applications (embedded
> devices, for instance) it makes sense to avoid including all this code.  
> The cleanest way to do that would be to make both PTRACE and UTRACE
> configurable.

PTRACE configurable makes a lot of sense, especially as we want to get
rid of it very long term.  Making UTRACE configurable aswel as all
these tracehooks wrappers just make the code utterly unreadable.