[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101128204435.GE12896@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 21:44:35 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: roland@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
"rjw@...k.plpavel"@ucw.cz,
Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/14] ptrace: remove the extra wake_up_process() from
ptrace_detach()
Today I lost the concentration at 13/14 ;)
Will continue tomorrow. As for this patch,
On 11/26, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> This wake_up_process() has a turbulent history. This is a remnant
> from ancient ptrace implementation and patently wrong. Commit
> 95a3540d (ptrace_detach: the wrong wakeup breaks the ERESTARTxxx
> logic) removed it
Yes. This obviously means I personally like this change. In fact,
I never understood this wakeup, and I was glad to find the reason
to send the patch.
> but the change was reverted later by commit edaba2c5
> (ptrace: revert "ptrace_detach: the wrong wakeup breaks the
> ERESTARTxxx logic ") citing compatibility breakage and general
> brokeness of the whole group stop / ptrace interaction.
Yes. Honestly, I completely forgot the reason, iirc 95a3540d
broke gdb somehow.
Add Jan. IIRC, we had a long discussion after that, and (iirc!)
Jan seems to agree we can kill this wakeup.
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