Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/23] tracehook: add linux/tracehook.h
From: Petr Tesarik <ptesarik@suse.cz>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>, Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
       Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
       Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
In-Reply-To: <20080717133426.GA9577@infradead.org>
References: <20080717072541.F390E15411D@magilla.localdomain>
	 <20080717072755.E2FBC15411D@magilla.localdomain>
	 <20080717084818.GA5637@martell.zuzino.mipt.ru>
	 <20080717133426.GA9577@infradead.org>
Content-Type: text/plain
Organization: SUSE LINUX
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 13:57:00 +0200
Message-Id: <1216382220.16208.26.camel@elijah.suse.cz>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1109
Lines: 30

On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 09:34 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 12:48:18PM +0400, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> > > The new linux/ptrace.h inlines are used by the following patches in the
> > > new tracehook_*() inlines.  Using these helpers for the ptrace event
> > > stops makes it simple to change or disable the old ptrace implementation
> > > of these stops conditionally later.
> > 
> > Call them "utrace_*" from the start?
> 
> Yes, please.
> 
> > Pointless 1:1 wrapper unless you're going to #ifdef ->ptrace later.
> 
> Even then I don't think it's a good idea.  This one should only be
> touched in very very few places

So, do you suggest putting those #ifdef's in the middle of the function
which uses it? Anyway, this patch should probably be posted later, i.e.
when the other implementation is actually introduced.

My $0.02.

Petr


--
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/