On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 02:34:11PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
Um... What's wrong with doing that from trap_c()?
IIRC that was the only way to make gdb work correctly wrt. single
stepping over system calls and into signal handlers. If anyone wants to
test it with today's kernel on real hardware, please go ahead.
Ouch... Resurrecting that 840av box will be interesting - most likely
a dead battery, but... ;-/ And yes, I certainly understand why qemu
testing is not sufficient for that kind of stuff - subtle enough to
make the odds of stepping on qemu bugs...
Oh, well. Anyway, the obvious ones I've got are:
* setup_frame/setup_rt_frame should report failure, so that
handle_signal() wouldn't block signals in that case (losing the original
mask, since it's not stored anywhere in that case)
* notify_resume isn't handled at all
* sigsuspend would be better off with ERESTARTNOHAND scheme.
FWIW, I wonder if it would be better to have handle_signal() call
send_sig() and clear regs.SR.T1 and forget about checking return
value of do_signal(); do_delayed_trace is still needed, since currently
there are two places that can reach it, but it'd make the code around
calling do_signal() simpler while preserving the current behaviour...
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-m68k" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
