Re: s390 && user_enable_single_step() (Was: odd utrace testingresults on s390x)

[Roland McGrath]

> Can't understand why do we need TIF_SINGLE_STEP at all.

I think you mean "why we need to set it in do_signal" here,
not "why do we need it to exist at all".

> Just pass current->thread.per_info.single_step to
> tracehook_signal_handler() ?

Yes.  I believe this is what Martin meant, and it's what I meant to endorse.

do_signal should not do anything with TIF_SINGLE_STEP at all.
Its only purpose should be to communicate from the low-level
trap assembly code up to the return-to-user assembly code so
it calls do_single_step.


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/