[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20100106211536.0F6AC134D@magilla.sf.frob.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 13:15:36 -0800 (PST)
From: Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
To: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.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)
> > then the test-case from 6580807da14c423f0d0a708108e6df6ebc8bc83d
> > fails. This probably means that copy_process()->user_disable_single_step()
> > is not enough to clear the "this task wants single-stepping" copied
> > from parent.
>
> user_disable_single_step() does not remove the TIF_SINGLE_STEP bit from the
> forked task. Perhaps we should just clear the bit in the function.
If that were to fix this test case, I think it would be incidental rather
than meaning the right thing. The "this task wants single-stepping" state
should not have anything to do with TIF_SINGLE_STEP. It means "this task
recently had single-stepping", which is a separate moving part.
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