[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091202184938.GB14799@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 19:49:38 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Ananth Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, utrace-devel@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC,PATCH 14/14] utrace core
On 12/01, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > +void utrace_resume(struct task_struct *task, struct pt_regs *regs)
> > +{
> > + struct utrace *utrace = task_utrace_struct(task);
> > + INIT_REPORT(report);
> > + struct utrace_engine *engine;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Some machines get here with interrupts disabled. The same arch
> > + * code path leads to calling into get_signal_to_deliver(), which
> > + * implicitly reenables them by virtue of spin_unlock_irq.
> > + */
> > + local_irq_enable();
>
> Hrmm, I would much prefer to fix up the calling conventions of
> tracehook_notify_resume() than to bury something like this in the guts
> of a tracehook user.
Missed this part too.
May be, I dunno...
But in any case, imho it would be better to do this after we merge utrace,
otherwise we need more subtle arch-dependent changes before.
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