2013/2/6 Stanislaw Gruszka :
> Below is proposed fix. Error cases wasn't that bad since there are
> various limitations when timer could be fired (i.e. timer which
> already fired can not be fired again).
>
> Tommi, please check if patch really fixes the problem. I tested it
> with signal interrupt
On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 11:55:19AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Feb 2013, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 08:32:23PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > On 02/01, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > >
> > > > B1;2601;0cOn Fri, 1 Feb 2013, Tommi Rantala wrote:
> > > >
> > >
On Tue, 5 Feb 2013, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 08:32:23PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 02/01, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > >
> > > B1;2601;0cOn Fri, 1 Feb 2013, Tommi Rantala wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > Trinity discovered a task_struct leak with clock_nan
On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 08:32:23PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 02/01, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >
> > B1;2601;0cOn Fri, 1 Feb 2013, Tommi Rantala wrote:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > Trinity discovered a task_struct leak with clock_nanosleep(),
> > > reproducible with:
> > >
> > > -8<-8
On 02/01, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> B1;2601;0cOn Fri, 1 Feb 2013, Tommi Rantala wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > Trinity discovered a task_struct leak with clock_nanosleep(), reproducible
> > with:
> >
> > -8<-8<-8<-
> > #include
> >
> > static const struct timespec req;
> >
> > int m
B1;2601;0cOn Fri, 1 Feb 2013, Tommi Rantala wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Trinity discovered a task_struct leak with clock_nanosleep(), reproducible
> with:
>
> -8<-8<-8<-
> #include
>
> static const struct timespec req;
>
> int main(void) {
> return clock_nanosleep(CLOCK_PROCE
6 matches
Mail list logo
