Re: [RFC,PATCH 14/14] utrace core [LWN.net]

From:		"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche-AT-redhat.com>
To:		Andi Kleen <andi-AT-firstfloor.org>
Subject:		Re: [RFC,PATCH 14/14] utrace core
Date:		Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:31:05 -0500
Cc:		"Molnar <mingo"@firstfloor.org, Oleg Nesterov <oleg-AT-redhat.com>, Ingo-AT-firstfloor.org, linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig <hch-AT-infradead.org>, utrace-devel-AT-redhat.com, Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan-AT-gmail.com>
Archive-link:		Article, Thread

Hi -

On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 10:26:19PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> [...]
> > For example. tracehook_report_syscall_entry() has a lot of callers
> > in arch/, each callsite should be changed to do
> > 
> > 	if ((task_utrace_flags(current) & UTRACE_EVENT(SYSCALL_ENTRY)) &&
> > 		utrace_report_syscall_entry(regs))
> > 		ret = -1; // this depends on machine
> > 
> > instead of simply calling tracehook_report_syscall_entry().
> 
> That should be in the utrace code?
> 
> I don't have a problem with having common code somewhere,
> just not a whole layer whose only purpose seems to be obfuscation.

One man's obfuscation is another man's abstraction.
Would you be satisfied if "tracehook_" was renamed "utracehook_"?


- FChE

(Log in to post comments)