On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 03:34:18PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > > Returning -ERSCH there would mean that the task struct doesn't exist, > > or something confusing like this. Which is not true: the task exists. > > Sure, we need a way of saying `you can't take a reference to the > breakpoints for this task' without specifying why. So I guess -ESRCH is > wrong but I don't know that -1 is correct either (then again, I'm not > *too* bothered by it :).
-EBUSY perhaps? Well I took -1 by default... > > > OTOH, the caller, which is ptrace, needs to take a decision when he > > can't take a reference to the breakpoints. The behaviour is > > to act as if the process does not exist anymore, which is about to > > happen for real but we anticipate because the task has reached a > > state in its exiting path where we can't manipulate the breakpoints > > anymore. > > > > So the rationale behind it is that -ERSCH is an interpretation > > of the caller. > > > > Right? > > Yup. > > For this and the ARM patch: > > Acked-by: Will Deacon <[email protected]> Great! Thanks! _______________________________________________ stable mailing list [email protected] http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/stable
