[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <874k2230tj.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org>
Date: Fri, 06 May 2022 14:42:16 -0500
From: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rjw@...ysocki.net, mingo@...nel.org,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
rostedt@...dmis.org, mgorman@...e.de, bigeasy@...utronix.de,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, tj@...nel.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
Anton Ivanov <anton.ivanov@...bridgegreys.com>,
Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
linux-um@...ts.infradead.org, Chris Zankel <chris@...kel.net>,
Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@...il.com>,
linux-xtensa@...ux-xtensa.org, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 10/12] ptrace: Don't change __state
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> writes:
> On 05/05, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>
>> --- a/include/linux/sched.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/sched.h
>> @@ -103,7 +103,7 @@ struct task_group;
>> /* Convenience macros for the sake of set_current_state: */
>> #define TASK_KILLABLE (TASK_WAKEKILL | TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE)
>> #define TASK_STOPPED (TASK_WAKEKILL | __TASK_STOPPED)
>> -#define TASK_TRACED (TASK_WAKEKILL | __TASK_TRACED)
>> +#define TASK_TRACED __TASK_TRACED
>
> however I personally still dislike this change. But let me read the
> code with this series applied, perhaps I will change my mind. If not,
> I will argue ;)
That is fair. I kind of grew on my after I implemented it and wrapped
my head around what was going on, as it is simple and there are no
implicit cases.
Eric
Powered by blists - more mailing lists