Re: [PATCH 04/14] signal: don't notify parent if not stopping aftertracehook_notify_jctl() in do_signal_stop()

[Tejun Heo]

Hello, Oleg.

On 11/26/2010 03:46 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>> This doesn't cause any behavior difference as the condition never
>> triggers in the current code.
> 
> I don't understand the motivation then (probably I should read
> the next patches).

The thing is that with the further changes in the series
tracehook_notify_jctl() becomes rather pointless as do_signal_stop()
becomes more involved with the ptrace logic and bypasses
tracehook_notify_jctl(), so I'm basically getting it out of the way.

tracehook might not be such a bad idea for parts which are further
away but for parts which are this close to ptrace implementation, it
seems more of obfuscation than helpful layering.  Especially,
restrictions and capabilities of tracehooks without actual (even
proposed) users aren't very healthy to keep.  Other people have to
keep guessing what the intentions behind the unused features are,
which is very frustrating and silly.

Anyways, we can deal with tracehooks later.  Let's just ignore
tracehook related changes for now.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/