Re: [PATCH] 2-ptrace_multi

From: Daniel Jacobowitz
Date: Mon May 22 2006 - 11:25:34 EST

On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 05:05:44PM +0200, Renzo Davoli wrote:
> Then it would be inconsistent with ppc64 where it does exist, and ppc64
> has the very same problem.
> So the solution would be to patch also the ppc64 [GS]ETREGS breaking
> compatibility with existing applications.

Or use new ptrace operations for the full regsets; that is probably

> The MULTI proposal was a way to have a fast, simple, safe support.
> Fast: one syscall does all

You've added copy_from_user to several operations which were previously
entirely register-based calling conventions. In at least some
configurations this will dwarf the cost of the system call trap.

> If you do not find this proposal interesting, I'll continue to support
> it as a specific patch for umview. I am not here to "sell" any solution.
> On the contrary I think it might be useful in many applications.

Well, I'm afraid that I don't find it interesting; and I don't think
GDB would make use of it.

Daniel Jacobowitz
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at