path: root/arch/score
diff options
authorChristoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>2010-03-10 15:22:46 -0800
committerLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>2010-03-12 15:52:38 -0800
commitdacbe41f776db0a5a9aee1e41594f405c95778a5 (patch)
treef6cb1436bd50a2572b7c5b44d44044be0e8005bd /arch/score
parentb3c1e01a09d6af2dd7811a066ffcfc5171be2bed (diff)
ptrace: move user_enable_single_step & co prototypes to linux/ptrace.h
While in theory user_enable_single_step/user_disable_single_step/ user_enable_blockstep could also be provided as an inline or macro there's no good reason to do so, and having the prototype in one places keeps code size and confusion down. Roland said: The original thought there was that user_enable_single_step() et al might well be only an instruction or three on a sane machine (as if we have any of those!), and since there is only one call site inlining would be beneficial. But I agree that there is no strong reason to care about inlining it. As to the arch changes, there is only one thought I'd add to the record. It was always my thinking that for an arch where PTRACE_SINGLESTEP does text-modifying breakpoint insertion, user_enable_single_step() should not be provided. That is, arch_has_single_step()=>true means that there is an arch facility with "pure" semantics that does not have any unexpected side effects. Inserting a breakpoint might do very unexpected strange things in multi-threaded situations. Aside from that, it is a peculiar side effect that user_{enable,disable}_single_step() should cause COW de-sharing of text pages and so forth. For PTRACE_SINGLESTEP, all these peculiarities are the status quo ante for that arch, so having arch_ptrace() itself do those is one thing. But for building other things in the future, it is nicer to have a uniform "pure" semantics that arch-independent code can expect. OTOH, all such arch issues are really up to the arch maintainer. As of today, there is nothing but ptrace using user_enable_single_step() et al so it's a distinction without a practical difference. If/when there are other facilities that use user_enable_single_step() and might care, the affected arch's can revisit the question when someone cares about the quality of the arch support for said new facility. Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> Cc: Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com> Acked-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Diffstat (limited to 'arch/score')
1 files changed, 1 insertions, 2 deletions
diff --git a/arch/score/include/asm/ptrace.h b/arch/score/include/asm/ptrace.h
index d40e691f23e..e89dc9b1ef4 100644
--- a/arch/score/include/asm/ptrace.h
+++ b/arch/score/include/asm/ptrace.h
@@ -90,8 +90,7 @@ extern int read_tsk_short(struct task_struct *, unsigned long,
unsigned short *);
#define arch_has_single_step() (1)
-extern void user_enable_single_step(struct task_struct *);
-extern void user_disable_single_step(struct task_struct *);
#endif /* __KERNEL__ */
#endif /* _ASM_SCORE_PTRACE_H */