lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Aug]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] notify_parent and ptrace cleanup
From
Date
Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com> writes:

> > We should split TASK_STOPPED into two different cases: TASK_STOPPED and
> > TASK_PTRACED.
>
> Ok. I think this has exactly the same effect as my patches get by
> introducing checks and invariants relating to last_siginfo. To me that was
> less ambitious than introducing a new value for the state field, because I
> am not entirely sure I grok how that is used everywhere. If you think that
> adding a new TASK_TRACED state will not have lots of gotchas, I am happy to
> take a crack at it.

I like it too. On my experimentation/check, adding new state was no big problem.

One things - SIGKILL wakes it up or not....

wakeup - still need the some lock
not wakeup - user visible

--
OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:05    [W:0.214 / U:0.396 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site