> On 10/22, Roland McGrath wrote: > > > > > Hmm. If task is not stopped then it is current (except > > > utrace_control(DETACH) can play with the dying task). > > > > Right, asynchronous detach was the problematic case I was concerned with. > > but asynchronous detach doesn't do utrace_reset(), unless the tracee > is stopped or exiting (->exit_state != 0).
Right. It doesn't since it's not safe to do (asynchronously). So, asynchronous detach is the case where we had a hole that could leave stepping enabled. That's what I meant. > > But the whole problem we have is that we aren't getting to > > that path when we've done a detach, right? > > Confused. We already discussed this before, Sorry, I am probably pretty lost at this point. Thanks, Roland
