Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754171Ab0LGNob (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Dec 2010 08:44:31 -0500 Received: from hera.kernel.org ([140.211.167.34]:60785 "EHLO hera.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752572Ab0LGNoa (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Dec 2010 08:44:30 -0500 Message-ID: <4CFE39EC.40907@kernel.org> Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2010 14:43:08 +0100 From: Tejun Heo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Roland McGrath CC: oleg@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, rjw@sisk.pl, jan.kratochvil@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/16] ptrace: remove the extra wake_up_process() from ptrace_detach() References: <1291654624-6230-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <1291654624-6230-17-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <20101207001043.13BCE400CE@magilla.sf.frob.com> In-Reply-To: <20101207001043.13BCE400CE@magilla.sf.frob.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.3 (hera.kernel.org [127.0.0.1]); Tue, 07 Dec 2010 13:43:11 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1408 Lines: 36 Hello, Roland. On 12/07/2010 01:10 AM, Roland McGrath wrote: > The plain wake_up_process was certainly wrong from the beginning. > > We were conservative about changing it because of the difficulty of > chasing all the corners where userland debuggers' behavior might be > made to regress when it had been reliable in practice before (even > if not always in theory, such as possible races that didn't bite in > reality). The userland code has gone to many contortions to cope > with how the kernel behaved in the past, whether or not that > behavior ever made any good sense. > > For that sort of reason, none of this stuff should change at all in > a -stable kernel, nor late in a release cycle. Sure, definitely. All these changes are at the earliest for the next merge window. > For new kernels, I think changing the behavior in the direction of > something that can actually be described is OK as long as userland > debugger maintainers like Jan agree to the new behavior and that the > behavior really and truly does follow an articulated set of rules > that the kernel and userland sides agree to. Yeap, that sounds good to me. Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/