[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110524154432.GH10334@htj.dyndns.org>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 17:44:32 +0200
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: jan.kratochvil@...hat.com, vda.linux@...glemail.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, indan@....nu, bdonlan@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/10] ptrace: implement group stop notification for
ptracer
Hello, Oleg.
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 03:44:11PM +0200, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > 2. ptrace_trap_notify() always sets JOBCTL_TRAP_NOTIFY. Even if the caller
> > is prepare_signal(SIGCONT) and there were no SIGSTOP in the past. This looks
> > a bit strange to me. I mean, perhaps it would be better to provoke the trap
> > only if this SIGCONT is going to change the jobctl state.
>
> Sure. It doesn't really matter tho and might even be better for
> weeding out invalid assumptions.
Hmmm... tried to change this but I think it's better as-is. As an
optimization, it isn't whole lot meaningful, and, if I do it, I would
probably end up moving SIGNAL_STOP_STOPPED and group_stop_count test
above actual wake up and then skipping wake up if none was true - it
would make SIGCONT handling more fragile without much benefit.
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