[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101221173258.GF13285@htj.dyndns.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 18:32:59 +0100
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: roland@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
rjw@...k.pl, jan.kratochvil@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/16] ptrace: clean transitions between TASK_STOPPED
and TRACED
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 06:31:55PM +0100, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > @@ -1842,7 +1879,18 @@ static int do_signal_stop(int signr)
> > >
> > > spin_lock_irq(¤t->sighand->siglock);
> > > } else
> > > - ptrace_stop(current->exit_code, CLD_STOPPED, 0, NULL);
> > > + ptrace_stop(current->group_stop & GROUP_STOP_SIGMASK,
> > > + CLD_STOPPED, 0, NULL);
> >
> > Perhaps it would be more clean to clear ->exit_code here, in the
> > "else" branch.
>
> Hmmm... and dropping current->exit_code clearing from the
> do_signal_stop(), right? I'm a bit confused about the use of
> current->exit_code tho. Why aren't we clearing it from ptrace_stop()?
Ah, never mind. It's used as the signr return from ptrace signal
trap.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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