From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932530AbVHJJgp (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Aug 2005 05:36:45 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932529AbVHJJgp (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Aug 2005 05:36:45 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:59598 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932526AbVHJJgo (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Aug 2005 05:36:44 -0400 From: David Howells In-Reply-To: <20050810080057.GA5295@lst.de> References: <20050810080057.GA5295@lst.de> To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] consolidate sys_ptrace X-Mailer: MH-E 7.82; nmh 1.0.4; GNU Emacs 22.0.50.4 Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 10:36:31 +0100 Message-ID: <25167.1123666591@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Christoph Hellwig 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 for FRV. My biggest concern with doing things like this is that it eats away at the kernel stack space available for a syscall, though I don't think it'll be too much of a problem in this case. Is there also a way to get rid of the lock_kernel() call? David