Re: [Suspend-devel] [PATCH -mm 1/2]: PM: Fix handling of stopped tasks

2006-12-08 Thread Pavel Machek
Hi! > > > I wonder if we should start a test suite ;-). > > > > > > > This means, however, that with this patch the behavior of a process > > > > (gdb) > > > > after the resume may be different to its normal behavior, which is > > > > wrong. > > > > > > Yep. > > Okay, I think I know what to d

Re: [Suspend-devel] [PATCH -mm 1/2]: PM: Fix handling of stopped tasks

2006-12-08 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
Hi, On Friday, 8 December 2006 12:49, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Friday, 8 December 2006 12:21, Pavel Machek wrote: > > Hi! > > > > > > > > > ...after resume. > > > > > > > > > > > > This is because of how signal_wake_up() works, I think.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > But I think it is right ap

Re: [Suspend-devel] [PATCH -mm 1/2]: PM: Fix handling of stopped tasks

2006-12-08 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
Hi, On Friday, 8 December 2006 12:49, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Friday, 8 December 2006 12:21, Pavel Machek wrote: > > Hi! > > > > > > > > > ...after resume. > > > > > > > > > > > > This is because of how signal_wake_up() works, I think.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > But I think it is right ap

Re: [Suspend-devel] [PATCH -mm 1/2]: PM: Fix handling of stopped tasks

2006-12-08 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
Hi, On Friday, 8 December 2006 12:21, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > > > > > ...after resume. > > > > > > > > > > This is because of how signal_wake_up() works, I think.. > > > > > > > > > > > But I think it is right approach. > > > > > > > > Okay, with the appended patch applied everything s

Re: [Suspend-devel] [PATCH -mm 1/2]: PM: Fix handling of stopped tasks

2006-12-08 Thread Pavel Machek
Hi! > > > > > ...after resume. > > > > > > > > This is because of how signal_wake_up() works, I think.. > > > > > > > > > But I think it is right approach. > > > > > > Okay, with the appended patch applied everything seems to work and I don't > > > see any undesirable side-effects. > > > > I p