> Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2020 20:14:18 -0500
> From: Scott Cheloha
>
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 08:06:52PM -0500, Scott Cheloha wrote:
> > _exit(2) and execve(2) need to obey the locking protocol described in
> > proc.h when manipulating the per-process interval timer state.
> >
> > While we're here
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 20:06:50 -0500, Scott Cheloha wrote:
> ... should I shove the for-loop into the helper function too? Maybe
> call it "cancel_all_itimers()"? I have a vague feeling that showing
> the reader that there are multiple timers is a good thing here, but
> then again maybe I'm wrong
On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 08:06:52PM -0500, Scott Cheloha wrote:
> _exit(2) and execve(2) need to obey the locking protocol described in
> proc.h when manipulating the per-process interval timer state.
>
> While we're here we can also remove the now pointless splclock/splx
> dance from execve(2).
>
_exit(2) and execve(2) need to obey the locking protocol described in
proc.h when manipulating the per-process interval timer state.
While we're here we can also remove the now pointless splclock/splx
dance from execve(2).
The easiest way to obey the locking protocol is to reuse the interface
