Roland McGrath wrote:
quoted text
> I certainly have no objection in principle.  I doubt that any x86 userland
> apps expect certain si_code values for SIGTRAP now, since the existing
> values are not of any real use.  (Signal handlers get the thread.trap_no and
> thread.error_code values from hardware to guess from, and debuggers via
> ptrace get the hardware %db6 value to guess from.)  I do have a few comments.
> 
> If you're doing it, I think you should do the do_int3 case too,
> so every machine-generated SIGTRAP has a meaningful si_code value.

Roland
    Thanks for your comments.

quoted text
>   I'm inclined to consolidate the si_code logic there, and just
> pass it the hardware bits or let it get them from the thread_struct
> (trap_nr, error_code, debugreg6).

That sounds like a good idea. Let me go through code and get back to you.

Thanks
  Srinivasa DS

--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/