On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 07:50:04PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > + ret = (*action)(>key, mode);
>
> And every action() should check signal_pending_state()...
>
> So why we can't change __wait_on_bit/etc instead and remove all the signal-
> pending checks from the callbacks?
Peter, sorry. I didn't actually read this patch yet (and a lot of previous
emails). Will try tomorrow, I am not even sure I understand the problem(s)
correctly. But let me ask one question anyway,
On 12/13, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> --- a/kernel/sched/wait.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/wait.c
> @@
Peter, sorry. I didn't actually read this patch yet (and a lot of previous
emails). Will try tomorrow, I am not even sure I understand the problem(s)
correctly. But let me ask one question anyway,
On 12/13, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> --- a/kernel/sched/wait.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/wait.c
> @@
On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 07:50:04PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > + ret = (*action)(>key, mode);
>
> And every action() should check signal_pending_state()...
>
> So why we can't change __wait_on_bit/etc instead and remove all the signal-
> pending checks from the callbacks?
Jan Stancek reported that I wrecked things for him by fixing things for
Vladimir :/
His report was due to an UNINTERRUPTIBLE wait getting -EINTR, which
should not be possible, however my previous patch made this possible by
unconditionally checking signal_pending().
We cannot use current->state
Jan Stancek reported that I wrecked things for him by fixing things for
Vladimir :/
His report was due to an UNINTERRUPTIBLE wait getting -EINTR, which
should not be possible, however my previous patch made this possible by
unconditionally checking signal_pending().
We cannot use current->state
6 matches
Mail list logo
