[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090730163035.GA3617@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 18:30:35 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: roland@...hat.com, utrace-devel@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm] introduce tracehook_finish_jctl() helper
On 07/29, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 04:01:40 +0200
> Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> > +static inline void tracehook_finish_jctl(void)
> > +{
> > +}
> > +
> > #define DEATH_REAP -1
> > #define DEATH_DELAYED_GROUP_LEADER -2
> >
> > --- __UTRACE/kernel/signal.c~2_FINISH_JCTL 2009-07-29 03:17:49.000000000 +0200
> > +++ __UTRACE/kernel/signal.c 2009-07-29 03:57:07.000000000 +0200
> > @@ -1735,12 +1735,12 @@ static int do_signal_stop(int signr)
> > read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
> > }
> >
> > + /* Now we don't run again until woken by SIGCONT or SIGKILL */
> > do {
> > schedule();
> > } while (try_to_freeze());
> > - /*
> > - * Now we don't run again until continued.
> > - */
> > +
> > + tracehook_finish_jctl();
> > current->exit_code = 0;
> >
>
> Confused. This patch has no effect.
Yes, currently tracehook_finish_jctl() does nothing. This patch is
needed to add the functional changes later, without touching the code
outside of tracehook/etc. It is like tracehook_notify_resume() which
does nothing until we add the real tracing.
Oleg.
--
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