Re: copy_process utrace_init_task (Was: [PATCH 133] stepping, accommodate to utrace-cleanup changes)

2009-11-18 Thread Roland McGrath
Found the trivial but nasty problem. Ah! Good catch. I added tracehook_init_task() in my tree. I don't see much benefit in sending any tracehook patch upstream for this. tracehook_init_task() corresponds to tracehook_free_task(), which is only added by utrace (and both would just be empty in

Re: copy_process utrace_init_task (Was: [PATCH 133] stepping, accommodate to utrace-cleanup changes)

2009-11-18 Thread Oleg Nesterov
On 11/18, Roland McGrath wrote: I added tracehook_init_task() in my tree. I don't see much benefit in sending any tracehook patch upstream for this. tracehook_init_task() corresponds to tracehook_free_task(), which is only added by utrace (and both would just be empty in a separate

copy_process utrace_init_task (Was: [PATCH 133] stepping, accommodate to utrace-cleanup changes)

2009-11-17 Thread Oleg Nesterov
On 11/16, Oleg Nesterov wrote: On 11/16, Oleg Nesterov wrote: And I didn't check make xcheck, I guess it still crashes the kernel. Yes it does. I am almost sure the bug should be trivial, but somehow can't find find it. Found the trivial but nasty problem.