Re: powerpc: step-jump-cont failure (Was: [PATCH] utrace: don't set -ops = utrace_detached_ops lockless)

2010-01-11 Thread CAI Qian
Thanks for pointing out. Sorry for the false alarm.

Re: powerpc: step-jump-cont failure (Was: [PATCH] utrace: don't set -ops = utrace_detached_ops lockless)

2009-12-14 Thread Jan Kratochvil
On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 19:12:41 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote: while the '.func_name' is the text address. tried to change the code to REGS_ACCESS (regs, nip) = (unsigned long) .raise_sigusr2 but gcc doesn't like this ;) ... Yes, I verified the patch below fixes step-jump-cont.c on

Re: powerpc: step-jump-cont failure (Was: [PATCH] utrace: don't set -ops = utrace_detached_ops lockless)

2009-12-09 Thread Oleg Nesterov
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

Re: powerpc: step-jump-cont failure (Was: [PATCH] utrace: don't set -ops = utrace_detached_ops lockless)

2009-12-08 Thread Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
On Mon, Dec 07, 2009 at 01:43:27PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote: On 12/06, CAI Qian wrote: Ananth, could you please confirm once again that step-jump-cont (from ptrace-tests testsuite) not fail on your machine? If yes, please tell me the version of glibc/gcc. Is PTRACE_GETREGS defined on your

Re: powerpc: step-jump-cont failure (Was: [PATCH] utrace: don't set -ops = utrace_detached_ops lockless)

2009-12-08 Thread Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
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 address of raise_sigusr2(), this value points

Re: powerpc: step-jump-cont failure (Was: [PATCH] utrace: don't set -ops = utrace_detached_ops lockless)

2009-12-07 Thread caiqian
I'll try to investigate, but currently I am all confused, and I suspect we have some user-space issues. If only I knew something about ppc... Sorry for the confusing. Ananth, could you please confirm once again that step-jump-cont (from ptrace-tests testsuite) not fail on your machine? If

Re: powerpc: step-jump-cont failure (Was: [PATCH] utrace: don't set -ops = utrace_detached_ops lockless)

2009-12-07 Thread Oleg Nesterov
On 12/07, caiq...@redhat.com wrote: Ananth, could you please confirm once again that step-jump-cont (from ptrace-tests testsuite) not fail on your machine? If yes, please tell me the version of glibc/gcc. Is PTRACE_GETREGS defined on your machine? Funny enough. The above failure only

Re: powerpc: step-jump-cont failure (Was: [PATCH] utrace: don't set -ops = utrace_detached_ops lockless)

2009-12-07 Thread Jan Kratochvil
On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 15:24:51 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote: But. raise_sigusr2 is not equal to the actual address of raise_sigusr2(), this value points to the thunk (I do not know the correct English term) ppc64 calls it function descriptor (GDB ppc64_linux_convert_from_func_ptr_addr): For

Re: powerpc: step-jump-cont failure (Was: [PATCH] utrace: don't set -ops = utrace_detached_ops lockless)

2009-12-07 Thread Oleg Nesterov
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 address of raise_sigusr2(), this value points to the thunk (I do not know the correct English term) ppc64 calls it function descriptor (GDB

Re: powerpc: step-jump-cont failure (Was: [PATCH] utrace: don't set -ops = utrace_detached_ops lockless)

2009-12-07 Thread Oleg Nesterov
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 address of raise_sigusr2(), this value points to the thunk (I do not know the correct English term) ppc64 calls