Re: nios2: is the ptrace ABI correct?
From: Chung-Lin Tang
Date: Tue Mar 10 2015 - 02:17:57 EST
On 2015/3/10 10:54 AM, Ley Foon Tan wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 1:05 AM, Ezequiel Garcia
> <ezequiel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 03/09/2015 02:02 PM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
>>> On 2015/3/10 12:54 AM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
>>>> It appears that some of the ways nios2 has organized the
>>>> ucontext/pt_regs/etc. are remnants of the pre-generic code, some
>>>> basically because the port was based off m68k.
>>>>
>>>> I've re-organized the headers a bit: nios2/include/asm/ucontext.h is
>>>> deleted, and re-definition of struct sigcontext now allows use of
>>>> uapi/asm-generic/ucontext.h directly. Note that the reorg, despite
>>>> effectively renaming some fields, is still binary compatible. I'll
>>>> probably update the corresponding glibc definitions later.
>>>>
>>>> struct pt_regs is now not exported, and all exported register sets are
>>>> now supposed to follow the 49 register set defined as in GDB now.
>>>>
>>>> Tobias, Ley Foon, how do you think this looks?
>>>
>>> Sorry, accidentally attached unrelated GCC patch instead, this one's the
>>> correct one.
>>>
>>
>> Looks good. I'm wondering if...
>>
>> +/* User structures for general purpose registers. */
>> +struct user_pt_regs {
>> + __u32 regs[49];
>> };
>>
>> Can we expose the registers explicitly here? Like this:
>>
>> struct user_pt_regs {
>> __u32 r0;
>> __u32 r1;
>> ...
>> __u32 sp;
>> __u32 gp;
>> __u32 estatus;
>> };
>>
>> It looks self-documenting and thus easier to use.
>
> Hi Chung-Lin,
>
> Your patch look good to me.
> Do you have any problem to change the struct user_pt_regs based on
> Ezequiel's suggestion?
Well, exposing the register names like that sort of defeats the purpose of
the PTR_* defines.
Judging from the overall trend of style in arch/*/include/uapi/asm/ptrace.h
across ports, I would prefer to stay with the array field.
Thanks,
Chung-Lin
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/