Re: [PATCH v2] linux-user/strace: Improve output of various syscalls

[Helge Deller]

On 21.11.19 19:23, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> On 11/21/19 6:35 PM, Aleksandar Markovic wrote:
>> On Thursday, November 21, 2019, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <address@hidden 
>> <mailto:address@hidden>> wrote:
>>
>>     On 11/21/19 6:00 PM, Aleksandar Markovic wrote:
>>
>>         On Thursday, November 21, 2019, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
>>         <address@hidden <mailto:address@hidden>
>>         <mailto:address@hidden <mailto:address@hidden>>> wrote:
>>
>>              On 11/21/19 9:19 AM, Helge Deller wrote:
>>
>>                  On 20.11.19 23:20, Aleksandar Markovic wrote:
>>
>>                      On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 10:13 PM Aleksandar Markovic
>>                      <address@hidden
>>         <mailto:address@hidden>
>>                      <mailto:address@hidden
>>         <mailto:address@hidden>>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>                          On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 3:58 PM Helge Deller
>>                          <address@hidden <mailto:address@hidden>
>>         <mailto:address@hidden <mailto:address@hidden>>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>                              Improve strace output of various syscalls which
>>                              either have none
>>                              or only int-type parameters.
>>
>>
>>                          It would be nice if you included a history of
>>         the patch
>>                          (after the line
>>                          "---", as it is customary for single patch
>>         submission).
>>                          You changed
>>                          only ioctl() in v2, right?
>>
>>
>>                  Yes. Will add history in next round.
>>
>>                          I missed your v2, but responded with several
>>         hints to v1.
>>
>>
>>                  Yes, I saw all your mails.
>>                  Thanks for your feedback!
>>
>>                      userfaultfd(), membarrier(), mlock2()... - all could be
>>                      included into
>>                      your patch.
>>
>>
>>                  I think there are quite some more which I didn't included.
>>                  That's why I wrote "*various*" and not "*all*" in my
>>         changelog.
>>                  I'm debugging other code, and the ones I fixed are the
>>         ones I
>>                  actually tested with my code.
>>
>>
>>              If you don't have handy way to test the other syscalls,
>>         I'll rather
>>              restrict your patch to the one you tested, at least you are
>>         certain
>>              you didn't introduced regressions. Unless their
>>         implementation is
>>              trivial, of course.
>>
>>
>>         What can be handier than writing a program that contains a
>>         single system call?
>>
>>
>>     Ahah very easy indeed :) Not noticing it shows how busy I am with
>>     firmware world than I forgot linux-user can be a simpler/powerful
>>     way to easily test stuff, as the Hexagon recent port also demonstrated.
>>
>>
>> Hexagon port doesn't have anything to do with this patch and didn't 
>> demonstrate anything new wrt linux-user. I have no idea what you meant to 
>> say.
> 
> I simply meant to say, if your port can run linux-user binaries, it 
> simplifies a lot the testing/coverage.
> 
> Hexagon is simpler to test than AVR.
> 
>> But, OK, Helge is the submitter, and he decides on the scope of his
>> patch. I am fine if he wants to limit it only to handful of
>> syscalls. I just hinted he could increase the vslue of the patch
>> significantly in an easy way.
Aleksandar, I really appreciate your feedback, but for now I'd like
to limit my patch to the currently implemented functions.
If you look in the file history you will find other submissions of
this type from me, so I'm sure I will follow up with further patches.
But right now I'm missing the time.
So, if it could be applied as is, it's a step forward for now. 
I'll send a v3 patch shortly.

Helge