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
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;
> > > + }
> >
> >
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;
+ }
'time' here is
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 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 same way. We need a
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
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
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
* 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 restartable? Am
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 is correct
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_wait is implemented
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_RESTART flag works
14 matches
Mail list logo
