On 11/13, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 18:38:53 +0100 > Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Change tracehook_report_syscall_exit() to look at step flag and send > > the trap signal if needed. > > > > This change affects ia64, microblaze, parisc, powerpc, sh. They pass > > nonzero "step" argument to tracehook but since it was ignored the tracee > > reports via ptrace_notify(), this is not right and not consistent. > > This patch conflicts with utrace-core.patch a bit: Ah, indeed, sorry... > static inline void tracehook_report_syscall_exit(struct pt_regs *regs, int step) > { > if (step) { > siginfo_t info; > user_single_step_siginfo(current, regs, &info); > force_sig_info(SIGTRAP, &info, current); > return; > } > > + if (task_utrace_flags(current) & UTRACE_EVENT(SYSCALL_EXIT)) > + utrace_report_syscall_exit(regs); > ptrace_report_syscall(regs); > } > > > utrace-core.patch is getting rather old. What is its status? Roland, given that you are going to send the updated utrace patch, perhaps it makes sense to drop this old utrace-core.patch from -mm? Oleg. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html