Hi,
On Tuesday, 5 December 2006 15:26, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, 5 December 2006 15:12, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > > > > Actually, what do you think about this patch? It removes special
> > > > > handling of TASK_TRACED, and should do the trick, too...
> > > >
> > > > I was surprised, but the patch seems to work okay. Can you replace
> > > > your 1/2 with this one, and see what breaks?
> > >
> > > I don't think anything will _visibly_ break, because (1) even if the
> > > traced
> > > task has TIF_SIGPENDING set unnecessarily, it will just notice there is no
> > > real signal to handle and continue and
> >
> > We are generating spurious wakeups, but as you noticed, that should be
> > okay.
>
> So we can move the check to freezeable(). Fine.
Oops, not so. We have to reset PF_FREEZE for it too and freezeable() doesn't
do that.
Greetings,
Rafael
--
If you don't have the time to read,
you don't have the time or the tools to write.
- Stephen King
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/suspend-devel
