On 10/23, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> OK, so making each pass through the loop a separate RCU read-side critical
> section might be considered to be suppressing notification of an error
> condition?
I agree, this change probably makes sense anyway. Personally I'd prefer
the version below (somehow I hate multiple unlock's), but I won't insist.
Oleg.
--- x/kernel/signal.c
+++ x/kernel/signal.c
@@ -1331,21 +1331,19 @@ int kill_pid_info(int sig, struct siginf
int error = -ESRCH;
struct task_struct *p;
- rcu_read_lock();
retry:
+ rcu_read_lock();
p = pid_task(pid, PIDTYPE_PID);
- if (p) {
+ if (p)
error = group_send_sig_info(sig, info, p);
- if (unlikely(error == -ESRCH))
- /*
- * The task was unhashed in between, try again.
- * If it is dead, pid_task() will return NULL,
- * if we race with de_thread() it will find the
- * new leader.
- */
- goto retry;
- }
rcu_read_unlock();
+ /*
+ * The task was unhashed in between, try again. If it is dead,
+ * pid_task() will return NULL, if we race with de_thread() it
+ * will find the new leader.
+ */
+ if (p && error == -ESRCH))
+ goto retry;
return error;
}
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
