"Phil Endecott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Andreas Schwab wrote: >> "Phil Endecott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>> However, there's a lot of code and I know that there are bugs in it. I >>> just want to focus on the kernel-related issue that the strace fragment >>> that I posted brings up: even if my user code gets completely screwed up >>> (corrupts its stack, runs out of FDs/VM/threads etc), I don't think that I >>> should see in the strace output that accept() has returned >>> ERESTARTSYS. >> >> strace always sees the raw return value, before the signal handler is >> executed and before the check for syscall restart is done. > > Yes, but I should see the real final return value in another strace output > line before I see that thread doing something else. Correct?
No. As far as strace is concerned the syscall has finished. Since it isn't restarted, you won't see it again in the trace. Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, [EMAIL PROTECTED] SuSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany PGP key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5 "And now for something completely different." -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
