This patch works for me too. -----Original Message----- From: Manfred Spraul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 11:49 AM To: Pavel Machek Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Agarwal, Lomesh; Nigel Cunningham Subject: Re: which signal is sent to freeze process?
> Hi! > > Can you generate small testcase that demonstrates the problem? > > > Then what would be the correct way to handle resume process. The other > > way of course is to make all the applications check the errno in case of > > failure. But that seems more more problematic then system call checking. > > What do you say? > > Hmm, does that testcase behave correctly over SIGSTOP/SIGCONT? I'm not > saying kernel behaves nicely here, but perhaps fixing the apps to > check errno properly is the right thing to do? :-) Perhaps the kernel should use ERESTARTNOHAND instead of EINTR? The current code is more than odd: - select() and sys_ppoll() both use ERESTARTNOHAND (i.e.: the functions do not return to user space with SIGSTOP/SIGCONT or freezer()) - sys_poll() uses EINTR (i.e.: SIGSTOP/SIGCONT/freezer() return to user space) Attached is a patch that switches sys_poll to ERESTARTNOHAND and a poll test app. Boot tested with FC6. What do you think? With ERESTARTNOHAND, poll would only return to user space if the app has a SIGCONT handler installed. -- Manfred - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/