[ptrace] please review follow fork/exec changes

[Dmitry Mikulin]

On 02/09/2012 04:17 PM, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 09, 2012 at 12:48:26PM -0800, Dmitry Mikulin wrote:
>>> The semantic of PL_FLAG_EXEC up until now is very simple: it indicates
>>> that current stop occured during the first return to usermode after
>>> successful exec. The proposed patch breaks the semantic, because now
>>> some stops which satisfy the stated condition are no longer marked with
>>> the flag.
>>>
>>> That said, I am lost. You stated that you still need some stops at
>>> exec even when not PT_FOLLOW_EXEC is requested. Why usermode cannot
>>> remember whether the PT_FOLLOW_EXEC was set for the process, and ignore
>>> PL_FLAG_EXEC if not requested ?
>> I was trying to avoid making ugly changes in gdb if it was possible not to
>> make ugly changes in the kernel. I changed gdb to work without
>> PT_FOLLOW_EXEC.
> So, does the patch below helps you, or did I missed something again ?

It works, but I managed to make gdb work without it. So, PT_FOLLOW_EXEC is not needed now.
Sorry for the confusion.