[PATCH 141] kill suppress_sigtrap()

You are right, thanks, suppress_sigtrap() is no longer needed. Surprisingly, it even has the comment which explains why it was needed before, and since the recent changes SIGTRAP from tracehook_report_syscall_exit() pathes is just not possible with utrace. This should also fix the compilation on

[PATCH 142] fix __must_check warnings

Fix __must_check warnings. The change in ptrace_wake_up() just fools the compiler, we really don't care if utrace_control() fails or returns something like -EINPROGRESS. But we could add a clever WARN_ON(err..) perhaps. --- kernel/ptrace-utrace.c |8 +--- 1 file changed, 5

Re: [PATCH] utrace: don't set -ops = utrace_detached_ops lockless

I was going to try again, but noticed you already recompiled and booted the kernel. I see ./test is running and there is nothing bad in dmesg ;) Yes, it looks good so far. Ptrace tests also does not show any regression. I kicked off a few tests on other platform, so hopefully have more

Re: [PATCH] utrace: don't set -ops = utrace_detached_ops lockless

Yes, it looks good so far. Ptrace tests also does not show any regression. I said this too early. Looks like step-jump-count started to fail now. step-jump-cont: step-jump-cont.c:244: main: Assertion `0' failed. /bin/sh: line 5: 28212 Aborted ${dir}$tst FAIL: step-jump-cont

Re: [PATCH v2] ptrace-tests: fix step-fork.c on powerpc for ptrace-utrace

Jan, this fixes step-fork.c on powerpc. Without this patch it just hangs, see http://marc.info/?t=12592474861 On 12/01, Veaceslav Falico wrote: Instead of using fork(), call syscall(__NR_fork) in step-fork.c to avoid looping on powerpc arch in libc. Signed-off-by: Veaceslav

step-into-handler.c compilation failure on ppc64

# make check ... gcc -DPACKAGE_NAME=\ptrace\ regression\ test\ suite\ -DPACKAGE_TARNAME=\ptrace-tests\ -DPACKAGE_VERSION=\0.1\ -DPACKAGE_STRING=\ptrace\ regression\ test\ suite\ 0.1\ -DPACKAGE_BUGREPORT=\utrace-de...@redhat.com\ -DPACKAGE=\ptrace-tests\ -DVERSION=\0.1\ -DSTDC_HEADERS=1

Re: step-into-handler.c compilation failure on ppc64

How about this? --- step-into-handler.c 10 Dec 2008 04:42:43 -0800 1.8 +++ step-into-handler.c 05 Dec 2009 09:18:54 -0800 @@ -35,6 +35,7 @@ #include sys/time.h #include string.h #include stddef.h +#include stdint.h #if defined __x86_64__ #define REGISTER_IP regs.rip @@ -113,11

Re: [PATCH] utrace: don't set -ops = utrace_detached_ops lockless

On 12/05, caiq...@redhat.com wrote: Yes, it looks good so far. Ptrace tests also does not show any regression. I said this too early. Looks like step-jump-count started to fail now. step-jump-cont: step-jump-cont.c:244: main: Assertion `0' failed. /bin/sh: line 5: 28212 Aborted

Re: step-into-handler.c compilation failure on ppc64

How about this? Thanks. Fixed.

ptrace tests failed to compile on i686

+ make check make[1]: Entering directory `/mnt/tests/kernel/misc/ptrace-testsuite/ptrace-tests' Making check in tests make[2]: Entering directory `/mnt/tests/kernel/misc/ptrace-testsuite/ptrace-tests/tests' gcc -m64 -DPACKAGE_NAME=\ptrace\ regression\ test\ suite\

Re: ptrace tests failed to compile on i686

OK, I think I should not use ./configure --with-biarch on i686. Sorry for the noise.