[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100108093025.28ec0907@mschwide.boeblingen.de.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 09:30:25 +0100
From: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
To: Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.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)
On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 13:46:42 -0800 (PST)
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com> wrote:
> > Clear the TIF_SINGLE_STEP bit in copy_thread. If the new process is
> > not auto-attached by the tracer it is wrong to delivere SIGTRAP to
> > the new process.
>
> The change is right, but this log entry is confusing. "auto-attached" has
> nothing to do with it, nor does anything about tracing the new process or
> not. The new process has not experienced a PER trap of its own, so it is
> wrong to deliver a SIGTRAP that is meant for its creator.
Ok, I changed the wording slightly:
Clear the TIF_SINGLE_STEP bit in copy_thread. The new process did not get
a PER event of its own. It is wrong deliver a SIGTRAP that was meant for
the parent process.
--
blue skies,
Martin.
"Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.
--
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