From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754695Ab1GVOvj (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jul 2011 10:51:39 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:29101 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754669Ab1GVOvh (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jul 2011 10:51:37 -0400 Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 16:49:07 +0200 From: Oleg Nesterov To: Tejun Heo Cc: Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Martin Schwidefsky , Heiko Carstens Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the ptrace tree with the s390 tree Message-ID: <20110722144907.GA7408@redhat.com> References: <20110720153320.a7f33784158ccb04fafcb5d6@canb.auug.org.au> <20110721080240.GZ3455@htj.dyndns.org> <20110721144447.GA7580@redhat.com> <20110722080600.GE2622@htj.dyndns.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110722080600.GE2622@htj.dyndns.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 07/22, Tejun Heo wrote: > > Yeah, it looks like a proper mess. Yes. > It seems ptrace left too much for > archs to decide. Events to be reported should be defined by generic > ptrace code I agree very much. Right now I am not sure if it really makes sense to avoid the SIGTRAP signals, but in any case I think that at least we need the generic ptrace_sigtrap(si_code, ...) helper which hides all details. And note that force_sig*() we use currently is wrong in this case, it removes SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE. And we should also cleanup the force_* mess. Also, it would be nice to remove the "task_struct *t" argument, force_sig_info() should be only used for synchronous signals. Afaics, only oom killer really needs force_sig_info() with t != current. And this reminds me, we need send_sigkill(). Oleg.