Re: [RFC,PATCH 14/14] utrace core

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 12/01, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > +void utrace_resume(struct task_struct *task, struct pt_regs *regs)
> > +{
> > +	struct utrace *utrace = task_utrace_struct(task);
> > +	INIT_REPORT(report);
> > +	struct utrace_engine *engine;
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Some machines get here with interrupts disabled.  The same arch
> > +	 * code path leads to calling into get_signal_to_deliver(), which
> > +	 * implicitly reenables them by virtue of spin_unlock_irq.
> > +	 */
> > +	local_irq_enable();
>
> Hrmm, I would much prefer to fix up the calling conventions of
> tracehook_notify_resume() than to bury something like this in the guts
> of a tracehook user.

Missed this part too.

May be, I dunno...

But in any case, imho it would be better to do this after we merge utrace,
otherwise we need more subtle arch-dependent changes before.

Oleg.

--
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/