Re: s390 user_enable_single_step() (Was: odd utrace testing results on s390x)

2010-01-08 Thread Martin Schwidefsky
On Thu,  7 Jan 2010 13:46:42 -0800 (PST)
Roland McGrath rol...@redhat.com wrote:

  Clear the TIF_SINGLE_STEP bit in copy_thread. If the new process is
  not auto-attached by the tracer it is wrong to delivere SIGTRAP to
  the new process.
 
 The change is right, but this log entry is confusing.  auto-attached has
 nothing to do with it, nor does anything about tracing the new process or
 not.  The new process has not experienced a PER trap of its own, so it is
 wrong to deliver a SIGTRAP that is meant for its creator.

Ok, I changed the wording slightly:

Clear the TIF_SINGLE_STEP bit in copy_thread. The new process did not get
a PER event of its own. It is wrong deliver a SIGTRAP that was meant for
the parent process.

-- 
blue skies,
   Martin.

Reality continues to ruin my life. - Calvin.



Re: s390 user_enable_single_step() (Was: odd utrace testing results on s390x)

2010-01-08 Thread Roland McGrath
 Ok, I changed the wording slightly:
 
 Clear the TIF_SINGLE_STEP bit in copy_thread. The new process did not get
 a PER event of its own. It is wrong deliver a SIGTRAP that was meant for
 the parent process.

Very good!

Thanks,
Roland