From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752137AbXCEQx0 (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Mar 2007 11:53:26 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752176AbXCEQx0 (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Mar 2007 11:53:26 -0500 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:58422 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752137AbXCEQxZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Mar 2007 11:53:25 -0500 Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 16:49:51 +0000 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Alan Stern Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Roland McGrath , Prasanna S Panchamukhi , 5B 5B Kernel development list Subject: Re: [RFC] hwbkpt: Hardware breakpoints (was Kwatch) Message-ID: <20070305164951.GA2909@infradead.org> Mail-Followup-To: Christoph Hellwig , Alan Stern , Roland McGrath , Prasanna S Panchamukhi , 5B 5B Kernel development list References: <20070305133639.GA6490@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by pentafluge.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 11:16:48AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote: > > Making this unconditional is pointless and just makes things harder to > > read, so please don't do it. (The same is true for utrace, but Roland > > has unfortunately still not replied to my mail mentioning it :P) > > Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying. I would think that making > it _conditional_ would make things harder to read, because of all the > extra "#ifdef" and "#endif" lines plus the need to keep two different > versions of the code in mind. > > Did you mean to say "conditional" instead of "unconditional"? Yes, I did mean that. Sorry for the confusion :) > Incidentally, I do believe that for certain applications (embedded > devices, for instance) it makes sense to avoid including all this code. > The cleanest way to do that would be to make both PTRACE and UTRACE > configurable. PTRACE configurable makes a lot of sense, especially as we want to get rid of it very long term. Making UTRACE configurable aswel as all these tracehooks wrappers just make the code utterly unreadable.