lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Apr]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] ptrace children revamp
Date
> Sorry for delay!

There's no need to apologize! I heartily appreciate all your help on this.

> Agreed. I never understood why we need __WNOTHREAD. The same for
> ->pdeath_signal in its current "per-thread" form. I think it would be
> very nice to kill them both (or send the ->pdeath_signal when the whole
> process exits). Then we can place all childrens on one signal->children
> list. But this is a bit off-topic for now.

I'm in complete agreement here, but indeed it's to be considered later.
I never understood pdeath_signal, but I recall someone piping up before
and saying it really was used with its current semantics, so go figure.
(Btw, we can move ->children and still keep __WNOTHREAD compatibility.
It just has to check p->parent == current for __WNOTHREAD. We can do
that if we determine that __WNOTHREAD is purely for anal backward
compatibility, and noone cares about the performance difference of
__WNOTHREAD calls only looping over a shorter list.)

> I think the 4th patch has a small problem,

Thanks. I think we're moving on to the other variant of the patch now,
so I won't worry about fixing up the version we're abandoning.

> Yes! I thought about this too. Actually, I was very sure that this is your
> plan from the the very beginning ;)

You were quite right! I somehow tricked myself into trying something
inferior first. Silly me. :-)


Thanks,
Roland


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-04-15 03:45    [W:0.073 / U:0.224 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site