Re: [PATCH 04/11] ptrace: implement PTRACE_INTERRUPT

[Tejun Heo]

Hello, again.

On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 07:06:17PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > I don't agree.  PTRACE_TRACEME predates PTRACE_ATTACH and is
> > completely redundant.  If you can make the child do PTRACE_TRACEME,
> > you might as well just make it do pause() and PTRACE_SEIZE yourself,
> > so unless there's something PTRACE_SEIZE can't do, I don't think I'll
> > be adding SEIZEME.
> 
> Heh. I think that you are very right technically and I thought the
> same. That is why I never mentioned PTRACE_TRACEME before. In fact
> I never understood why PTRACE_TRACEME exists.
> 
> However. Perhaps this is wrong from the practical pov. SEIZEME can
> simplify the conversion of the existing code. People are lazy, but
> we need the users of PTRACE_SEIZE.

Hmmm... given that the attaching part is somewhat isolated from the
rest of code.  I'm hoping to get away with providing a sample code in
documentation.  :-)

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/