From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 00:38:01 +0000
Subject: RE: [PATCH] ptrace RSE bug
Message-Id: <1193272681.7545.2.camel@sli10-conroe.sh.intel.com>
List-Id: <linux-ia64.vger.kernel.org>
References: <1188357710.22637.7.camel@sli10-conroe.sh.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <1188357710.22637.7.camel@sli10-conroe.sh.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, 2007-10-25 at 07:38 +0800, Luck, Tony wrote:
> > Thanks. So Tony, how do think about the IA64 part of the patch?
> 
> Having to use ia64_peek() and ia64_poke() to copy the RBS 8 bytes
> at a time looks a bit ugly ... but this isn't in the performance
> path (unless you are running your whole application under strace(1)!)
> so it probably isn't an issue.  If it turns out to be, then an
> incremental fix on top of this would be the way to go.

> So I'm ok with the ia64 parts ... which leaves the open issue
> of the generic part (moving the spin_unlock_irq() after the
> set_current_state(TASK_TRACED)) ... which (if I follow this
> thread correctly) is still an open issue, right?
Right. Roland, can you help on this? I remember you said you know how to
fix it, I'm not familar on this.

Thanks,
Shaohua