On 07/22, Tejun Heo wrote: > > Yeah, it looks like a proper mess. Yes. > 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, it removes SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE. 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(). Oleg. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
