[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20100106211329.DB4F5134D@magilla.sf.frob.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 13:13:29 -0800 (PST)
From: Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>, caiqian@...hat.com,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Jan Kratochvil <jkratoch@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
utrace-devel@...hat.com
Subject: Re: s390 && user_enable_single_step() (Was: odd utrace testing
results on s390x)
> However, with or without CONFIG_UTRACE, 6580807da14c423f0d0a708108e6df6ebc8bc83d
> is needed on s390 too, otherwise the child gets unnecessary traps.
This confuses me. user_disable_single_step on non-current doesn't do
anything not already done by the memset in copy_thread. Ooh, except
perhaps it does not clear PSW_MASK_PER. Maybe that matters. That's
the only thing I can think of. Maybe Martin can make sense of it.
Thanks,
Roland
--
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