* Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> LTP test sigaction_16_24 fails, because it expects sem_wait to be
> restarted if SA_RESTART is set. sem_wait is implemented with
> futex_wait, that currently doesn't support being restarted. Ulrich
> confirms that the call should be restartable.
>
>
LTP test sigaction_16_24 fails, because it expects sem_wait to be restarted
if SA_RESTART is set. sem_wait is implemented with futex_wait, that currently
doesn't support being restarted. Ulrich confirms that the call should be
restartable.
Implement a restart_block method to handle the relative ti
On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 13:24 +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > > 'time' here is relative, so the restarted syscall will do a /full/ wait
> > > > again.
> > >
> > > But it has been modified by schedule_timeout?
> >
> > But this does not change the syscall registers, so it is restarted in
> > the sam
On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 10:38:35AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 06:10 +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > i think that's quite right. I'm wondering why this never came up before?
> > > But your fix is not complete i think:
> > >
> > > > + restart->arg2 = time;
> >
On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 06:10 +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > i think that's quite right. I'm wondering why this never came up before?
> > But your fix is not complete i think:
> >
> > > + restart->arg2 = time;
> > > + return -ERESTART_RESTARTBLOCK;
> > > + }
> >
> > 'tim
On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 12:02:31AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-03-08 at 18:29 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Ingo,
> > >
> > > I'm seeing an LTP test fail for ltp test sigaction_16_24. Basically,
> > > it tests whether the SA_
On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 06:29:02PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Hi Ingo,
> >
> > I'm seeing an LTP test fail for ltp test sigaction_16_24. Basically,
> > it tests whether the SA_RESTART flag works for the sem_wait operation.
> >
> > I see sem_wai
On Thu, 2007-03-08 at 18:29 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Hi Ingo,
> >
> > I'm seeing an LTP test fail for ltp test sigaction_16_24. Basically,
> > it tests whether the SA_RESTART flag works for the sem_wait operation.
Not sure, whether the testcase
* Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Ingo,
>
> I'm seeing an LTP test fail for ltp test sigaction_16_24. Basically,
> it tests whether the SA_RESTART flag works for the sem_wait operation.
>
> I see sem_wait is implemented with futex_wait, so I wonder whether we
> can make it restart
Hi Ingo,
I'm seeing an LTP test fail for ltp test sigaction_16_24. Basically,
it tests whether the SA_RESTART flag works for the sem_wait operation.
I see sem_wait is implemented with futex_wait, so I wonder whether we
can make it restartable? Am I going about it the right way? (Seems to
fix the
10 matches
Mail list logo