Re: [RFC,PATCH 14/14] utrace core

From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>,
	Ananth Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@in.ibm.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@redhat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, utrace-devel@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC,PATCH 14/14] utrace core
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 19:49:38 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20091202184938.GB14799@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1259697242.1697.1075.camel@laptop>

On 12/01, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > +void utrace_resume(struct task_struct *task, struct pt_regs *regs)
> > +{
> > +	struct utrace *utrace = task_utrace_struct(task);
> > +	INIT_REPORT(report);
> > +	struct utrace_engine *engine;
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Some machines get here with interrupts disabled.  The same arch
> > +	 * code path leads to calling into get_signal_to_deliver(), which
> > +	 * implicitly reenables them by virtue of spin_unlock_irq.
> > +	 */
> > +	local_irq_enable();
>
> Hrmm, I would much prefer to fix up the calling conventions of
> tracehook_notify_resume() than to bury something like this in the guts
> of a tracehook user.

Missed this part too.

May be, I dunno...

But in any case, imho it would be better to do this after we merge utrace,
otherwise we need more subtle arch-dependent changes before.

Oleg.