From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757580Ab0BCTXm (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Feb 2010 14:23:42 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:31610 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756024Ab0BCTXl (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Feb 2010 14:23:41 -0500 Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 20:22:23 +0100 From: Oleg Nesterov To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Haavard Skinnemoen , roland@redhat.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, hskinnemoen@atmel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/14] avr32: use generic ptrace_resume code Message-ID: <20100203192223.GA12039@redhat.com> References: <20100202185755.GA3630@lst.de> <20100202185857.GD3630@lst.de> <20100203084737.6e01247b@siona> <20100203083611.GA29025@lst.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100203083611.GA29025@lst.de> 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 02/03, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > I don't think the flag clearing on PTRACE_KILL matters as the process > is a zombie and almost gone anyway, it's more an artefact of the > generic implementation that I wanted to mention. Well, PTRACE_KILL doesn't necessarily kill the tracee. Only if the tracee reported the signal or syscall, otherwise ->exit_code is ignored. OTOH I agree, probably the flag clearing on PTRACE_KILL doesn't really matter beause PTRACE_KILL shouldn't be used at all. The whole series looks "obviously good" to me, but of course this is up to arch maintaners. Oleg.