Re: linux-next: manual merge of the ptrace tree with the s390 tree

From: Oleg Nesterov
Date: Fri Jul 22 2011 - 10:51:42 EST

On 07/22, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Yeah, it looks like a proper mess.


> It seems ptrace left too much for
> archs to decide. Events to be reported should be defined by generic
> ptrace code

I agree very much. Right now I am not sure if it really makes sense
to avoid the SIGTRAP signals, but in any case I think that at least
we need the generic ptrace_sigtrap(si_code, ...) helper which hides
all details.

And note that force_sig*() we use currently is wrong in this case,

And we should also cleanup the force_* mess. Also, it would be
nice to remove the "task_struct *t" argument, force_sig_info()
should be only used for synchronous signals. Afaics, only oom
killer really needs force_sig_info() with t != current. And this
reminds me, we need send_sigkill().


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at