Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759820Ab1CDQPs (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Mar 2011 11:15:48 -0500 Received: from mail-fx0-f46.google.com ([209.85.161.46]:53325 "EHLO mail-fx0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759427Ab1CDQPq (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Mar 2011 11:15:46 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=vFCFV3C39UOiEDmBlFQn33hRTg00M0KBRpFqr9ThLI8EmnIGSapp/aXWMJfbVPQzwl GktK4xiwpntt/UGwDynt+8io945WTGc+iS+mzKcQabk8hbCw4TlnrOZ6PB30oBJ8wt14 kyl6Ht0awFpBBESkg79+pDAu4LZNksOZ/pogw= Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 17:15:41 +0100 From: Tejun Heo To: Oleg Nesterov Cc: Roland McGrath , jan.kratochvil@redhat.com, Denys Vlasenko , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Proposal for ptrace improvements Message-ID: <20110304161541.GV20499@htj.dyndns.org> References: <20110301152457.GE26074@htj.dyndns.org> <20110303173422.GA27960@redhat.com> <20110304084441.GB20499@htj.dyndns.org> <20110304160151.GA23553@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110304160151.GA23553@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1035 Lines: 25 Hello, Oleg. On Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 05:01:51PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > What I meant, I think the exact details can be discussed separately. > Say, personally I'd prefer 2 different requests, ATTACH && INTERUPT, > but I think this is very minor, and I agree with everything as long > as user-space developers do not object. I just tried to avoid the > discussion of the "cosmetic" details at this point. Understood. One thing tho. Do you think having ATTACH_NO_STOP would be better? I think that's a noticeable difference. To me, it seems to only complicate things. If we decide to go for ATTACH_STOP_WITHOUT_SIDE_EFFECT then the difference between that and INTERRUPT again becomes really small, so that was the reason why I proposed to have a unified one. 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/