From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S935204Ab1ETIqs (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 May 2011 04:46:48 -0400 Received: from mail-bw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.214.46]:44368 "EHLO mail-bw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933796Ab1ETIqq (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 May 2011 04:46:46 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=w1Yuf5mg1ye5GVpTDRN1D8uwb3XCVIbn7KlY5DXZPCRopI1pADGkJ3TCaXHEqHB4Ob KunpYR27LyR5ELuJWyzs+4Q374MnY9M36UzpVELWq/fjwEuNlTONMqItCjLiLAOYDx3g 6nz/osePOoVRE77Qwd58CPIYgutZJg6fzPKtk= Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 10:46:41 +0200 From: Tejun Heo To: Oleg Nesterov Cc: jan.kratochvil@redhat.com, vda.linux@googlemail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, indan@nul.nu, bdonlan@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/10] ptrace: implement group stop notification for ptracer Message-ID: <20110520084641.GA31426@htj.dyndns.org> References: <1305569849-10448-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <1305569849-10448-11-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <20110519163246.GF17265@redhat.com> <20110519165722.GP627@htj.dyndns.org> <20110519171327.GA19698@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110519171327.GA19698@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello, Oleg. On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 07:13:27PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > OK. I still hope we can avoid this somehow. May be play with exit_code > so that do_wait() can succeed even if the JOBCTL_TRAPPING tracee is > running. Perhaps. I considered that but re-trapping seemed cleaner to me. wait(2) already depends on retries so I don't think adding TRAPPING wait introduces too much extra complexity. That said, if you can come up with something simpler, by all means. > If only we could notify the tracer from ptrace_trap_notify... IIUC, > this is the only problem? I mean, apart from this there is no need > to wake up the tracee. Yeap, correct. ahead. Thanks. -- tejun