Re: [PATCH] notify_parent and ptrace cleanup

[OGAWA Hirofumi]

Roland McGrath <roland@xxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/