Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1385392 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-04-22 19:20 +0200 |
| Last post | 2016-04-25 19:00 +0200 |
| Articles | 2 — 1 participant |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: [PATCH 19/25] arm64: ptrace: handle ptrace_request differently for aarch32 and ilp32 Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> - 2016-04-22 19:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH 19/25] arm64: ptrace: handle ptrace_request differently for aarch32 and ilp32 Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> - 2016-04-25 19:00 +0200
| From | Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-22 19:20 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH 19/25] arm64: ptrace: handle ptrace_request differently for aarch32 and ilp32 |
| Message-ID | <rqMUj-5Du-47@gated-at.bofh.it> |
On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 01:08:41AM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > Here new aarch32 ptrace syscall handler is introsuced to avoid run-time > detection of the task type. The reason for this patch isn't clear to me. What's wrong with the run-time detection? It's not some performance critical code. -- Catalin
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-25 19:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rrS1A-Kw-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1385392 |
On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 12:40:13AM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 06:10:09PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 01:08:41AM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > > > Here new aarch32 ptrace syscall handler is introsuced to avoid run-time > > > detection of the task type. > > > > The reason for this patch isn't clear to me. What's wrong with the > > run-time detection? It's not some performance critical code. > > It was requested by Arnd, It's not 'new' syscall basically, just an > attempt to avoid run-time detection of things that may be detected an > compile-time. OK. I noticed that it touches core files and wondering whether it was necessary but I'm fine with this approach. -- Catalin
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web