In article <20190403080801.170d2f...@cvs.netbsd.org>, Kamil Rytarowski <source-changes-d@NetBSD.org> wrote: >-=-=-=-=-=- > >Module Name: src >Committed By: kamil >Date: Wed Apr 3 08:08:00 UTC 2019 > >Modified Files: > src/sys/arch/alpha/alpha: syscall.c > src/sys/arch/arm/arm: syscall.c > src/sys/arch/hppa/hppa: trap.c > src/sys/arch/ia64/ia64: syscall.c > src/sys/arch/m68k/m68k: m68k_syscall.c > src/sys/arch/mips/mips: trap.c > src/sys/arch/powerpc/powerpc: syscall.c > src/sys/arch/riscv/riscv: riscv_machdep.c > src/sys/arch/sh3/sh3: vm_machdep.c > src/sys/arch/sparc/sparc: syscall.c > src/sys/arch/sparc64/sparc64: syscall.c > src/sys/arch/vax/vax: syscall.c > src/sys/arch/x86/x86: syscall.c > src/sys/kern: kern_fork.c > >Log Message: >Rework the fork(2)/vfork(2) event signalling under ptrace(2) > >Remove the constraint of SIGTRAP event being maskable by a tracee. > >Now all SIGTRAP TRAP_CHLD events are delivered to debugger. > >This code touches MD specific logic and the child_return routine. >It's an intermediate step with a room for refactoring in future and >right now the least invasive approach. This allows to assert expected >behavior in already existing ATF tests and make the code prettier >in future keeping the same semantics. Probably there is a need for a MI >wrapper of child_return for shared functionality between ports.
Yes, but this md copy-pasted code should be handled with an MI function. If it is all the same don't copy it 13 times! christos
