On 09/20, Anjali Kulkarni wrote: > > > On Sep 20, 2024, at 4:00 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > I don't think you can use task_struct->exit_code. If this task is ptraced, > > it can be changed/cleared in, say, ptrace_stop() after PROC_CN_MCAST_NOTIFY. > > > > Thank you, that’s a good point! However, the use case of ptrace, which I assume > is for mostly debug and tracing, is exclusive of the use case I am using it for Well. I don't understand your use-case. Or any other use-case for drivers/connector/ that I know nothing about. But this is irrelevant. The new PROC_CN_MCAST_NOTIFY functionality you propose should work regardless of whether this task is ptraced or not. But it doesn't because the usage of ->exit_code in your patch conflicts with the current usage of this field. So, NACK, sorry. Oleg.
