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

Reply via email to