On 11/12, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 11/12, Roland McGrath wrote:
I did some tweaks that I think address the several things you've raised.
But I didn't try to reply point by point. I've merged everything up now,
so the utrace-cleanup branch is gone. Please review the current code and
I did some tweaks that I think address the several things you've raised.
But I didn't try to reply point by point. I've merged everything up now,
so the utrace-cleanup branch is gone. Please review the current code and
post about anything we still need to fix.
I merged into utrace-ptrace and
On 11/12, Roland McGrath wrote:
I did some tweaks that I think address the several things you've raised.
But I didn't try to reply point by point. I've merged everything up now,
so the utrace-cleanup branch is gone. Please review the current code and
post about anything we still need to
3. Now that we have utrace-resume, can't we kill report-resume_action ?
I thought this initially when making the change and then decided against
it. I don't recall exactly what was in my mind at the time. It would
take some more thought now to be sure whether there is a semantic
problem. But
8. Completely off-topic, but utrace_control() has a very strange comment
under case UTRACE_INTERRUPT,
* When it's stopped, we know it's always going
* through utrace_get_signal() and will recalculate.
can't recall if it were ever true, but surely it is not now?
I
4. One of the changes in utrace_get_signal() doesn't look exactly right.
if (utrace-resume UTRACE_RESUME || utrace-signal_handler) {
...
if (resume UTRACE_REPORT) {
report.action = resume;
7. utrace_attach_task() has an implicit wmb() between -utrace = new_utrace
and -utrace_flags = REAP, this is good.
But, for example, tracehook_force_sigpending() does not have rmb(),
this means utrace_interrupt_pending() can OOPS in theory.
Ok. Please send a patch. Off hand it
2. Cosmetic, but the usage of utrace_task_alloc() looks a bit strange.
Why it returns bool, not struct utrace * ?
The pointer it would return is always target-utrace or it's NULL.
So the bool just says which of those it would be instead. Either
way I imagine it should be inlined so the
On 10/28, Roland McGrath wrote:
I've made a new branch, utrace-cleanup.
This forks from utrace-indirect and has:
26fefca utrace: sticky resume action
28b2774 utrace: remove -stopped field
I am not sure I understand the new code in details - too much changes.
Anyway, I can never understand
