On 08/11, Roland McGrath wrote:
>
> @@ -1298,14 +1305,14 @@ static void finish_report(struct utrace_
> {
> bool clean = (report->takers && !report->detaches);
>
> - if (report->action <= UTRACE_REPORT && !utrace->report) {
> - spin_lock(&utrace->lock);
> - utrace->report = 1;
> - set_tsk_thread_flag(task, TIF_NOTIFY_RESUME);
> - } else if (report->action == UTRACE_INTERRUPT && !utrace->interrupt) {
> + if (report->action == UTRACE_INTERRUPT && !utrace->interrupt) {
> spin_lock(&utrace->lock);
> utrace->interrupt = 1;
> set_tsk_thread_flag(task, TIF_SIGPENDING);
> + } else if (report->action <= UTRACE_REPORT && !utrace->report) {
> + spin_lock(&utrace->lock);
> + utrace->report = 1;
Hmm. I think this is not exacly right. Suppose that
report->action == UTRACE_INTERRUPT but utrace->interrupt is already set.
In that case, since UTRACE_INTERRUPT <= UTRACE_REPORT, we set ->report.
Not really bad, but not right anyway.
Oleg.
