From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the ptrace tree with the s390 tree Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 10:02:40 +0200 Message-ID: <20110721080240.GZ3455@htj.dyndns.org> References: <20110720153320.a7f33784158ccb04fafcb5d6@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110720153320.a7f33784158ccb04fafcb5d6@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Oleg Nesterov , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Martin Schwidefsky , Heiko Carstens List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org Hello, On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 03:33:20PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Today's linux-next merge of the ptrace tree got a conflict in > arch/s390/kernel/traps.c between commit 248bed4b0f3c ("[S390] use siginfo > for sigtrap signals") from the s390 tree and commit a288eecce525 > ("ptrace: kill trivial tracehooks") from the ptrace tree. > > It looks like the former is a superset of the latter, so I used the > former. Yeap, pretty much. Martin, testing if (current->ptrace) is enough. If PT_PTRACED is not set, no other flag there is allowed to set. Also, I think we really should standardize what gets reported in these debug traps instead of letting each arch do its own thing. Thanks. -- tejun