[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110201193636.GA9785@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 20:36:36 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, jan.kratochvil@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/10] ptrace: participate in group stop from
ptrace_stop() iff the task is trapping for group stop
On 01/28, Roland McGrath wrote:
>
> If
> there is a group stop in progress but not yet complete, then PTRACE_CONT
> on a thread in the group should probably just move it from TASK_TRACED
> to TASK_STOPPED without resuming it at all.
>
> Once a group stop is complete, then probably the ideal is that
> PTRACE_CONT would not resume a thread until a real SIGCONT cleared the
> job control stop condition.
Well. I agree. I even tried to mention this before.
Or, if PTRACE_CONT resumes the tracee it should clear SIGNAL_STOP_STOPPED.
> But it's likely that existing ptrace users
> have expectations contrary to that,
Sure ;)
Btw. I just realized that I didn't reply explicitly to this series.
Because I thought we already discussed everything and I have nothing
to add. I think that everything is technically correct. I mean, I
believe the patches do exactly what the changelog says.
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