Re: [PATCH] Fix PT_IO ptrace(2) request

2002-10-17 Thread Juli Mallett
* De: Mark Kettenis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2002-10-17 ] [ Subjecte: Re: [PATCH] Fix PT_IO ptrace(2) request ] >Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 12:49:14 -0400 (EDT) >From: John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >On 14-Oct-2002 Mark Kettenis wrote: >> T

Re: [PATCH] Fix PT_IO ptrace(2) request

2002-10-17 Thread Mark Kettenis
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 12:49:14 -0400 (EDT) From: John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On 14-Oct-2002 Mark Kettenis wrote: > The new PT_IO ptrace(2) request doesn't work, since it doesn't release > a lock. Since PT_IO is similar to PT_READ_D/PT_WRITE_D, I copied the > PROC_UNLOCK fr

RE: [PATCH] Fix PT_IO ptrace(2) request

2002-10-16 Thread John Baldwin
On 14-Oct-2002 Mark Kettenis wrote: > The new PT_IO ptrace(2) request doesn't work, since it doesn't release > a lock. Since PT_IO is similar to PT_READ_D/PT_WRITE_D, I copied the > PROC_UNLOCK from there and inserted in the same location. Patch, > against version 1.103 of sys_process.c, attach

[PATCH] Fix PT_IO ptrace(2) request

2002-10-14 Thread Mark Kettenis
The new PT_IO ptrace(2) request doesn't work, since it doesn't release a lock. Since PT_IO is similar to PT_READ_D/PT_WRITE_D, I copied the PROC_UNLOCK from there and inserted in the same location. Patch, against version 1.103 of sys_process.c, attached. This patch is also available as: htt