Re: [RFC] Proposal for ptrace improvements

[Tejun Heo]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/