Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 16:22:48 -0700 From: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> To: David Xu <davidxu@freebsd.org> Cc: Perforce Change Reviews <perforce@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 55970 for review Message-ID: <20040628232248.GB51785@dhcp50.pn.xcllnt.net> In-Reply-To: <40E0A3FD.1000804@freebsd.org> References: <200406280413.i5S4DS0D033867@repoman.freebsd.org> <40DFBA3C.7040806@freebsd.org> <20040628174213.GA51072@dhcp50.pn.xcllnt.net> <40E0A3FD.1000804@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 07:04:29AM +0800, David Xu wrote: > > > OK, ttrace was existing before lwpid_t was introduced, I will > check if I can reuse ptrace interface. Thanks! I haven't worried about the ability to resume single threads and also wait for single threads. I think we can safely ignore that for now. So, if ptrace(2) only gives us limited support, but it's enough for now than I think modifying ptrace(2) is a good option. -- Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 marcel@xcllnt.net
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040628232248.GB51785>