RE: RFC/patch: down_timeout_interruptible()

2007-02-25 Thread Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky
>From: Arjan van de Ven [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> I gave it a quick try (must admit, not too tested) and it seems that >> the setting of TIF_SIGPENDING without really having a signal queued >> is not having easily visible ugly consequences. > >what happens if you get a signal around the time

RE: RFC/patch: down_timeout_interruptible()

2007-02-25 Thread Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky
From: Arjan van de Ven [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I gave it a quick try (must admit, not too tested) and it seems that the setting of TIF_SIGPENDING without really having a signal queued is not having easily visible ugly consequences. what happens if you get a signal around the time the

Re: RFC/patch: down_timeout_interruptible()

2007-02-24 Thread Arjan van de Ven
> I gave it a quick try (must admit, not too tested) and it seems that > the setting of TIF_SIGPENDING without really having a signal queued > is not having easily visible ugly consequences. what happens if you get a signal around the time the timeout fires? - To unsubscribe from this list:

Re: RFC/patch: down_timeout_interruptible()

2007-02-24 Thread Arjan van de Ven
I gave it a quick try (must admit, not too tested) and it seems that the setting of TIF_SIGPENDING without really having a signal queued is not having easily visible ugly consequences. what happens if you get a signal around the time the timeout fires? - To unsubscribe from this list: send