On 11/26/06, Pavel Machek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: =================================================================== > > --- linux-2.6.19-rc6-mm1.orig/include/linux/sched.h > > +++ linux-2.6.19-rc6-mm1/include/linux/sched.h > > @@ -1065,6 +1065,9 @@ struct task_struct { > > #ifdef CONFIG_TASK_DELAY_ACCT > > struct task_delay_info *delays; > > #endif > > +#ifdef CONFIG_PM > > + int freezing; /* if set, we should be freezing for suspend > > */ > > +#endif > > #ifdef CONFIG_FAULT_INJECTION > > int make_it_fail; > > #endif > > It is int, imagine machine that can't do 32-bit atomic access (only > does 64 bits). On such beast (alpha? something stranger?) this will > clobber make_it_fail field, sometimes. > > OTOH on i386 normal instructions can be used. But that's okay, we > should just use atomic_t here. Should be as fast on i386/x86-64, and > still safe.
What about using lock_task_sighand()? This should protect us against ->flags manipulation due to signals without the need of an extra field. Luca ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Suspend-devel mailing list Suspend-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/suspend-devel