Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 17:26:18 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>, jan.kratochvil@redhat.com,
        Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@googlemail.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] Proposal for ptrace improvements
Message-ID: <20110304162618.GA24871@redhat.com>
References: <20110301152457.GE26074@htj.dyndns.org> <20110303173422.GA27960@redhat.com> <20110304084441.GB20499@htj.dyndns.org> <20110304160151.GA23553@redhat.com> <20110304161541.GV20499@htj.dyndns.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20110304161541.GV20499@htj.dyndns.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1123
Lines: 29

On 03/04, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> 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?

No, I don't think so. More precisely, I simply do not know, we should
probably ask Jan.

But. from the previous discussions, gdb seems to need
PTRACE_O_ATTACH_NEW_THREADS_AND_DO_NOT_STOP. Because gdb simply do not
want to know about the new thread, until it does something "interesting".
However this leads to other questions.

Oleg.

--
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/