From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S268726AbUHYVPT (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Aug 2004 17:15:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S268713AbUHYUy2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Aug 2004 16:54:28 -0400 Received: from mail.parknet.co.jp ([210.171.160.6]:47118 "EHLO mail.parknet.co.jp") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S268709AbUHYUxn (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Aug 2004 16:53:43 -0400 To: Roland McGrath Cc: Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH] notify_parent and ptrace cleanup References: <200408252020.i7PKKJSU017557@magilla.sf.frob.com> From: OGAWA Hirofumi Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 05:53:19 +0900 In-Reply-To: <200408252020.i7PKKJSU017557@magilla.sf.frob.com> Message-ID: <87llg3kkhs.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp> User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3.50 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Roland McGrath writes: > > We should split TASK_STOPPED into two different cases: TASK_STOPPED and > > TASK_PTRACED. > > Ok. I think this has exactly the same effect as my patches get by > introducing checks and invariants relating to last_siginfo. To me that was > less ambitious than introducing a new value for the state field, because I > am not entirely sure I grok how that is used everywhere. If you think that > adding a new TASK_TRACED state will not have lots of gotchas, I am happy to > take a crack at it. I like it too. On my experimentation/check, adding new state was no big problem. One things - SIGKILL wakes it up or not.... wakeup - still need the some lock not wakeup - user visible -- OGAWA Hirofumi