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
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
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
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
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
