On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 7:22 PM, Frederic Weisbecker
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Makes sense, but I think you need to keep the TASK_RUNNING check.
Yes, good point.
> So perhaps it should be:
>
> - return tsk && (tsk->state == TASK_RUNNING);
> + return (tsk == current) && (tsk->state == TASK_RUNNING);
Looks good to me - definitely worth trying.
Maybe that weakens the thing so much that it doesn't actually help the
UDP packet storm case?
And maybe it's not sufficient for the dvb issue.
But I think it's worth at least testing. Maybe it makes neither side
entirely happy, but maybe it might be a good halfway point?
Linus
