[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070317150021.GA3618@Ahmed>
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 17:00:21 +0200
From: "Ahmed S. Darwish" <darwish.07@...il.com>
To: hannes-kernel@...urebad.de
Cc: kernel-janitors@...ts.osdl.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
trivial@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.21-rc4] kernel/exit: Fix a comment and code contradiction
[Johannes please use replay-to-all to notify all readers]
On 2007-03-17 9:45:36 Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 17, 2007 at 08:21:32AM +0200, Ahmed S. Darwish wrote:
> > Comment in release_task() claims that group leader's parent process
> > is signalled only if it desires so, which is not true.
>
> AFAIS, `if it wants notification' means, it does not ignore its children
> via SIG_IGN als handler for SIGCHLD.
>
AFAIK, exit_signal = -1 means that the parent don't want to be signalled,
like what happenes when using CLONE_THREAD.
But it's even signalled in that case (after issuing a BUG):
BUG_ON(leader->exit_signal == -1);
do_notify_parent(leader, leader->exit_signal);
> do_notify_parent() checks if the parent wants to get informed about the
> child states.
>
Yes it does the check but it notifies the given task_struct anyway:
BUG_ON(sig == -1);
[ Continue parent notification normally ]
--
Ahmed S. Darwish
http://darwish.07.googlepages.com
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists