> Nothing wrong (I think), but this is more complex and implies more > unnecessary work.
You mean the code path taken is longer. But the code's logic remains simple. > If ptrace_report_signal() sends the trap, we actually send the signal > twice. Firstly ptrace_resume() does utrace_control(UTRACE_INTERRUPT) > (ok, this is not the signal sending but sort of), then ->report_signal() > notices we need the trap and send the "real" signal, then we return > to get_signal_to_deliver() which calls utrace_get_signal() again, it > dequeues SIGTRAP and calls ptrace_report_signal() again to finally > report SIGTRAP to the tracer. I don't think this extra step is particuarly costly given the context. > But: I am not sure yet, but I think the current code is not optimal for > that, it was written to report *info without force_sig_info(). I don't really follow that bit. But I'll just see what new code you come up with. > So, lets revert this change for now to be compatible. This change > is simple and can be done again at any time, probably along with > upstream change. Ok. Thanks, Roland
