On 11/13, Roland McGrath wrote: > > > 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.
The logic a bit complicated too, because ctx->signr is overloaded. Otohm, I don't like to add "bool send_trap" into ptrace_context. But yes, it is still simple. > > 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. No, you won't see the more optimal code ;) I was going to use UTRACE_REPORT instead of UTRACE_INTERRUPT and factor out some common code in report_quiesce/report_signal, but that was a bad idea. Please see the simple 130-132 patches I am sending, tomorrow I'll try to understand/fix the breakage caused by utrace-cleanup changed. I tried to understand why the kernel crashes at least, but no luck today. The kernel just hangs silently without any messages. Fortunately this all is reproducible ;) Oleg.
