From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Oleg Nesterov Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the ptrace tree with the s390 tree Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 16:44:47 +0200 Message-ID: <20110721144447.GA7580@redhat.com> References: <20110720153320.a7f33784158ccb04fafcb5d6@canb.auug.org.au> <20110721080240.GZ3455@htj.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:25389 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751297Ab1GUOrS (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jul 2011 10:47:18 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110721080240.GZ3455@htj.dyndns.org> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Tejun Heo Cc: Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Martin Schwidefsky , Heiko Carstens On 07/21, Tejun Heo wrote: > > > 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. Agreed, > Also, I think we really should standardize what gets reported in these > debug traps instead of letting each arch do its own thing. May be we can standardize .si_info within the single arch at least ;) I never understood what TRAP_HWBKPT/TRAP_BRKPT actually means, and I can be easily wrong. But, afaics, on x86 PTRACE_SINGLESTEP results in TRAP_TRACE. Unless the tracee steps over syscall, in this case user_single_step_siginfo() sets TRAP_BRKPT. Hmm. And unless I misread 248bed4b0f3c s390 thinks we need TRAP_HWBKPT. Oleg.