Re: [PATCH v2] linux-user/strace: Improve output of various syscalls

[Aleksandar Markovic <aleksandar.m.mail@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2755 bytes --]

On Thursday, November 21, 2019, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com>
wrote:

> On 11/21/19 6:00 PM, Aleksandar Markovic wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, November 21, 2019, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com
>> <mailto:philmd@redhat.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     On 11/21/19 9:19 AM, Helge Deller wrote:
>>
>>         On 20.11.19 23:20, Aleksandar Markovic wrote:
>>
>>             On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 10:13 PM Aleksandar Markovic
>>             <aleksandar.m.mail@gmail.com
>>             <mailto:aleksandar.m.mail@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>                 On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 3:58 PM Helge Deller
>>                 <deller@gmx.de <mailto:deller@gmx.de>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>                     Improve strace output of various syscalls which
>>                     either have none
>>                     or only int-type parameters.
>>
>>
>>                 It would be nice if you included a history of the patch
>>                 (after the line
>>                 "---", as it is customary for single patch submission).
>>                 You changed
>>                 only ioctl() in v2, right?
>>
>>
>>         Yes. Will add history in next round.
>>
>>                 I missed your v2, but responded with several hints to v1.
>>
>>
>>         Yes, I saw all your mails.
>>         Thanks for your feedback!
>>
>>             userfaultfd(), membarrier(), mlock2()... - all could be
>>             included into
>>             your patch.
>>
>>
>>         I think there are quite some more which I didn't included.
>>         That's why I wrote "*various*" and not "*all*" in my changelog.
>>         I'm debugging other code, and the ones I fixed are the ones I
>>         actually tested with my code.
>>
>>
>>     If you don't have handy way to test the other syscalls, I'll rather
>>     restrict your patch to the one you tested, at least you are certain
>>     you didn't introduced regressions. Unless their implementation is
>>     trivial, of course.
>>
>>
>> What can be handier than writing a program that contains a single system
>> call?
>>
>
> Ahah very easy indeed :) Not noticing it shows how busy I am with firmware
> world than I forgot linux-user can be a simpler/powerful way to easily test
> stuff, as the Hexagon recent port also demonstrated.
>
>
Hexagon port doesn't have anything to do with this patch and didn't
demonstrate anything new wrt linux-user. I have no idea what you meant to
say.

But, OK, Helge is the submitter, and he decides on the scope of his patch.
I am fine if he wants to limit it only to handful of syscalls. I just
hinted he could increase the vslue of the patch significantly in an easy
way.

Thanks,
Aleksandar

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3820 bytes --]