On Sat, 1 May 2021 at 01:48, Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Well with 7 patches instead of 3 that was a little more than I thought > I was going to send. > > However that does demonstrate what I am thinking, and I think most of > the changes are reasonable at this point. > > I am very curious how synchronous this all is, because if this code > is truly synchronous updating signalfd to handle this class of signal > doesn't really make sense. > > If the code is not synchronous using force_sig is questionable. > > Eric W. Biederman (7): > siginfo: Move si_trapno inside the union inside _si_fault > signal: Implement SIL_FAULT_TRAPNO > signal: Use dedicated helpers to send signals with si_trapno set > signal: Remove __ARCH_SI_TRAPNO > signal: Rename SIL_PERF_EVENT SIL_FAULT_PERF_EVENT for consistency > signal: Factor force_sig_perf out of perf_sigtrap > signal: Deliver all of the perf_data in si_perf Thank you for doing this so quickly -- it looks much cleaner. I'll have a more detailed look next week and also run some tests myself. At a first glance, you've broken our tests in tools/testing/selftests/perf_events/ -- needs a s/si_perf/si_perf.data/, s/si_errno/si_perf.type/ Thanks! -- Marco
