Re: [RFC,PATCH 14/14] utrace core

[Roland McGrath]

> > > +	 * Some machines get here with interrupts disabled.  The same arch
> > > +	 * code path leads to calling into get_signal_to_deliver(), which
> > > +	 * implicitly reenables them by virtue of spin_unlock_irq.
> > > +	 */
> > > +	local_irq_enable();
> >
> > Hrmm, I would much prefer to fix up the calling conventions of
> > tracehook_notify_resume() than to bury something like this in the guts
> > of a tracehook user.

The reason I did it this way was mainly just not to make the requirement
for arch maintainers' too subtle.  As it is, we just say that you call
tracehook_notify_resume() after clearing TIF_NOTIFY_RESUME, when it was
set.  That keeps the specification quite simple.  Of course, that is not
really much of a reason.  If arch folks don't mind the requirement to
replace e.g.:

	if (thread_info_flags & _TIF_NOTIFY_RESUME) {
		clear_thread_flag(TIF_NOTIFY_RESUME);
		tracehook_notify_resume(regs);
	}

with:


	if (thread_info_flags & _TIF_NOTIFY_RESUME) {
		local_irq_enable();
		clear_thread_flag(TIF_NOTIFY_RESUME);
		tracehook_notify_resume(regs);
	}

then that is certainly fine by me.  But we do now have almost all the
arch's calling tracehook_notify_resume() and I don't know how many of
them do it in irqs-disabled context so they would need this change.

> But in any case, imho it would be better to do this after we merge utrace,
> otherwise we need more subtle arch-dependent changes before.

I tend to agree.


Thanks,
Roland
--
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/