From owner-freebsd-hackers  Fri Apr 26 09:06:52 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id JAA16316
          for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 09:06:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id JAA16309
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 09:06:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.7.5/8.6.9) with SMTP id JAA00231; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 09:06:37 -0700 (PDT)
To: Sean Eric Fagan <sef@kithrup.com>
cc: hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Something fishy with our PT_ATTACH code! 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 26 Apr 1996 09:03:40 PDT."
             <199604261603.JAA13098@kithrup.com> 
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 09:06:37 -0700
Message-ID: <229.830534797@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> It doesn't seem that the detached process is suspending itself so much as it
> is simply renotifying the parent that it is still stopped.  This could be
> wrong behaviour, however.
> 
> To change that, in the PT_DETACH code, a
> 
> 	psignal(p, SIGCONT);
> 
> would do the trick.  I think ;).

Well, it seems to me that we should really restore the process's
previous state - what if it was suspended to start with? :-)

						Jordan