Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754013Ab1FRIgH (ORCPT ); Sat, 18 Jun 2011 04:36:07 -0400 Received: from mail-fx0-f46.google.com ([209.85.161.46]:56131 "EHLO mail-fx0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753061Ab1FRIgE (ORCPT ); Sat, 18 Jun 2011 04:36:04 -0400 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=k0Jy480rwSDB/GdHgzDAmsiAOlzfU9/1fRWx6igIEaTU7VrX6IHYU5rHIqhlOW5A87 99wsKQVaq2gSmSOK2VWplQtLDuDte87ozyg0TP9qWNg7Cf9kwGg+mcFNIqYjAf4rqgSJ DFrWT9pPPg6qUP1ln7dpEyVHDrPnbiau7uYh4= Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2011 10:35:59 +0200 From: Tejun Heo To: Denys Vlasenko Cc: oleg@redhat.com, jan.kratochvil@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, indan@nul.nu, bdonlan@gmail.com, pedro@codesourcery.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] ptrace: implement PTRACE_SEIZE Message-ID: <20110618083559.GK2611@htj.dyndns.org> References: <1308043218-23619-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <1308043218-23619-3-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <201106180955.37531.vda.linux@googlemail.com> <201106180959.38847.vda.linux@googlemail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201106180959.38847.vda.linux@googlemail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1019 Lines: 24 Hello, On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 09:59:38AM +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote: > ...unless we plan to introduce PTRACE_O_TRACESTOP (with value 0x00000080) > which enables PTRACE_INTERRUPT and stop notifications independently > of PTRACE_SEIZE. Which would be very useful for e.g. strace. I know you're a big fan of those option flags but I don't really see the added value in making these behaviors optional rather than keeping things backward compatible - ie. introducing new event needed to be gated somehow so the O flags but SEIZE itself serves as a big gate anyway so I don't see much point in introducing multiple selectable behaviors. It's not like PTRACE_O_TRACESTOP is gonna make anything drastically easier or reduce significant amount of overhead. 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/