[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <48E0D957.5080907@in.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 19:04:15 +0530
From: Srinivasa DS <srinivasa@...ibm.com>
To: Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, paulus@...ba.org,
linuxppc-dev@...abs.org, linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] Demultiplexing SIGTRAP signal -v2
Roland McGrath wrote:
> I certainly have no objection in principle. I doubt that any x86 userland
> apps expect certain si_code values for SIGTRAP now, since the existing
> values are not of any real use. (Signal handlers get the thread.trap_no and
> thread.error_code values from hardware to guess from, and debuggers via
> ptrace get the hardware %db6 value to guess from.) I do have a few comments.
>
> If you're doing it, I think you should do the do_int3 case too,
> so every machine-generated SIGTRAP has a meaningful si_code value.
Roland
Thanks for your comments.
> I'm inclined to consolidate the si_code logic there, and just
> pass it the hardware bits or let it get them from the thread_struct
> (trap_nr, error_code, debugreg6).
That sounds like a good idea. Let me go through code and get back to you.
Thanks
Srinivasa DS
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists