On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 19:16:32 +0100 Oleg Nesterov <o...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 01/07, Martin Schwidefsky wrote: > > > > On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 13:08:12 -0800 (PST) > > Roland McGrath <rol...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > That's what tracehook_signal_handler is for. You're both doing it > > > yourself > > > in the arch code (by setting TIF_SINGLE_STEP), and then telling the > > > generic > > > code to do it (by passing stepping=1 to tracehook_signal_handler). > > > > Ok, so with the full utrace the semantics of tracehook_signal_handler > > is more than just causing a SIGTRAP. It is an indication for a signal > > AND a SIGTRAP if single-stepping is active. To make both cases work we > > should stop setting TIF_SINGLE_STEP in do_signal and pass > > current->thread.per_info.single_step to tracehook_signal_handler > > instead of test_thread_flag(TIF_SINGLE_STEP). > > Can't understand why do we need TIF_SINGLE_STEP at all. > > Just pass current->thread.per_info.single_step to > tracehook_signal_handler() ? > > Oleg. > > --- a/arch/s390/kernel/signal.c > +++ b/arch/s390/kernel/signal.c > @@ -504,14 +504,8 @@ void do_signal(struct pt_regs *regs) > * for a normal instruction, act like we took > * one for the handler setup. > */ > - if (current->thread.per_info.single_step) > - set_thread_flag(TIF_SINGLE_STEP); > - > - /* > - * Let tracing know that we've done the handler setup. > - */ > tracehook_signal_handler(signr, &info, &ka, regs, > - test_thread_flag(TIF_SINGLE_STEP)); > + current->thread.per_info.single_step); > } > return; > } > That is what I meant in the other mail. The patch on my local disk looks almost the same but it removes the comment prior to the TIF_SINGLE_STEP if statement as well. -- blue skies, Martin. "Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.
