Am 11.12.2015 um 07:58 schrieb Anton Ivanov: >>> 2. I cannot catch what is wrong with the current code in signal.c. When >>> I read it, it should not produce re-entrancy. But it does. >> Sorry for the delay. Until now I did not find the time to dig into that. >> Did you find the offending code in signal.c? > > Yes. > > Unblock signals is logically incorrect - it will re-trigger an > interrupts even if there is an interrupt in flight whose processing has > not been finished. > > I tried several approaches both with the original poll() controller and > with my epoll() based version, some show promise. > > I had to put it aside until next Friday as I have some stuff due at work > so I cannot spare time to work on it until then. Once I get that out of > the way I should be able to spare it a day or two which should be enough > to finish it. > > Ditto for the UBD improvements.
One thing we have to consider is that's legit to have SIGIO nested. I'm currently investigating whether we use do_IRQ() correctly. Thanks, //richard ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ User-mode-linux-devel mailing list User-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-devel
