Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] notify_parent and ptrace cleanup | From | OGAWA Hirofumi <> | Date | Thu, 26 Aug 2004 05:53:19 +0900 |
| |
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/
| |