On 12/08, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
On Mon, Dec 07, 2009 at 07:05:40PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 12/07, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 12/07, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 15:24:51 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
But. raise_sigusr2 is not equal to the actual
On 12/08, caiq...@redhat.com wrote:
This is seen with and without CONFIG_UTRACE.
Good, at least we shouldn't worry about utrace.
FAIL: watchpoint
ppc-dabr-race: ./../tests/ppc-dabr-race.c:141: handler_fail: Assertion `0'
failed.
/bin/sh: line 5: 31750 Aborted ${dir}$tst
(add cc's)
On 12/03, Roland McGrath wrote:
Not sure what should we do right now, s390 needs more attention.
Also, it uses PT_PTRACED bit, I am afraid this is not what we wan
with utrace.
This looks simple. Its one use can just be
tracehook_consider_fatal_signal(SIGTRAP) instead. I
On Wed, Dec 09, 2009 at 08:54:28PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
(add cc's)
On 12/03, Roland McGrath wrote:
Not sure what should we do right now, s390 needs more attention.
Also, it uses PT_PTRACED bit, I am afraid this is not what we wan
with utrace.
This looks simple. Its one
But... I tried to understand these check and failed. Why do we need them?
They look unneeded to me, but of course I know nothing about s390.
It's not specific to s390. Other arch's have equivalent logic. As
with all things ptrace, I strongly suspect that they just blindly
copied the logic
* Frank Ch. Eigler f...@redhat.com wrote:
[...]
If the in-kernel gdb stub replaced kgdb functionally you'd hear no
complaints from me.
Let's leave it as an idea for the future.
We came a full circle - that's the argument. We say overlap, duplication
and incomplete implementation in
