>-----Original Message----- >From: Ingo Molnar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Samstag, 15. Dezember 2007 08:30
>another detail: shouldnt this be structured so that the APIs are >introduced in kernel/ptrace.c, and that the architecture offers the >mechanism. (which would thus be ptrace-independent) This would >also open >these APIs up to kernel-internal use and to be used by other >architectures. Isn't this best done once we actually have at least one other architecture? The DS interface should be fine for kernel and user trace on x86, but it may not be the best interface for other architectures. regards, markus. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Intel GmbH Dornacher Strasse 1 85622 Feldkirchen/Muenchen Germany Sitz der Gesellschaft: Feldkirchen bei Muenchen Geschaeftsfuehrer: Douglas Lusk, Peter Gleissner, Hannes Schwaderer Registergericht: Muenchen HRB 47456 Ust.-IdNr. VAT Registration No.: DE129385895 Citibank Frankfurt (BLZ 502 109 00) 600119052 This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
