[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110304162618.GA24871@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 17:26:18 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>, jan.kratochvil@...hat.com,
Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@...glemail.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] Proposal for ptrace improvements
On 03/04, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> Hello, Oleg.
>
> On Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 05:01:51PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > What I meant, I think the exact details can be discussed separately.
> > Say, personally I'd prefer 2 different requests, ATTACH && INTERUPT,
> > but I think this is very minor, and I agree with everything as long
> > as user-space developers do not object. I just tried to avoid the
> > discussion of the "cosmetic" details at this point.
>
> Understood. One thing tho. Do you think having ATTACH_NO_STOP would
> be better?
No, I don't think so. More precisely, I simply do not know, we should
probably ask Jan.
But. from the previous discussions, gdb seems to need
PTRACE_O_ATTACH_NEW_THREADS_AND_DO_NOT_STOP. Because gdb simply do not
want to know about the new thread, until it does something "interesting".
However this leads to other questions.
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