[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080624134240.GA310@tv-sign.ru>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 17:42:40 +0400
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: ebiederm@...ssion.com, mingo@...e.hu,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, roland@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rjw@...k.pl
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] introduce PF_KTHREAD flag
On 06/23, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 13:47:06 -0700
> Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> > I don't yet know how much additional damage will happen as a result.
>
> Lots.
>
> I restored the patches and just dropped the hunk:
>
> static int has_mm(struct task_struct *p)
> {
> - return (p->mm && !(p->flags & PF_BORROWED_MM));
> }
>
> /**
> --- 86,92 ----
>
> static int has_mm(struct task_struct *p)
> {
> + return (p->mm && !(p->flags & PF_KTHREAD));
> }
>
> due to that function having been turned into:
>
> static inline bool should_send_signal(struct task_struct *p)
> {
> return !(p->flags & PF_FREEZER_NOSIG);
> }
>
> Please check the result?
Thanks, this looks OK.
Rafael, can't freezer just use PF_KTHREAD (which btw kills PF_BORROWED_MM)
instead of the new PF_FREEZER_NOSIG flag? They look very similar, please
look at
"[PATCH 1/3] introduce PF_KTHREAD flag"
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121233423530812
"[PATCH 2/3] kill PF_BORROWED_MM in favour of PF_KTHREAD"
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121233423530820
Oleg.
--
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