From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
To: Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC Patch v1 33/55] ARC: ptrace support
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 11:56:51 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.12.2 (Linux/3.5.0; KDE/4.3.2; x86_64; ; )
Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        tglx@linutronix.de
References: <1352720953-24321-1-git-send-email-vgupta@synopsys.com> <201211121351.06023.arnd@arndb.de> <50A4C2C5.90306@synopsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <50A4C2C5.90306@synopsys.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201211151156.52033.arnd@arndb.de>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1288
Lines: 29

On Thursday 15 November 2012, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> On Monday 12 November 2012 07:21 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>
> > I think these should be moved into regsets, as we have done for all
> > other new architectures. Your arch_ptrace then becomes a trivial wrapper
> > around ptrace_request.
> 
> The regset stuff is already complete - and even this code uses the reget
> callbacks. It's just that we need to carry on this dual ABI for some
> time for our legacy gdbserver.

Ok, but please don't submit that patch upstream then. It's ok to
keep it in your own tree for the transitional phase, I assume
that you have other patches in there as well that are not submitted
yet. Once the new gdb is in use everywhere, you can just drop that
patch.

The problem with having this upstream is that this would create
a precedent for having the interface, and if people start relying
on it being there, we can't remove from upstream any more. If you
just have it in your private repository, we can just argue that it
was never officially supported.

	Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/