[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201105241555.47282.pedro@codesourcery.com>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 15:55:46 +0100
From: Pedro Alves <pedro@...esourcery.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@...glemail.com>, oleg@...hat.com,
jan.kratochvil@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
indan@....nu, bdonlan@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/10] ptrace: implement PTRACE_SEIZE
On Tuesday 24 May 2011 15:02:15, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Now that thinking more about it, TRAP_STOP (INTERRUPT trap) would
> probably be better. I'll think more about it. For fork, it doesn't
> really matter but deliverying SIGSTOP on CLONE isn't too good. From
> user's POV, TRAP_STOP should work too, right?
AFAICS, it should be no problem.
Thanks,
--
Pedro Alves
--
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