[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.01.0905180819130.3301@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 08:32:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Martin Bammer <mrb74@....at>,
Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@...ox.com>,
Kumar Gala <galak@...nel.crashing.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>,
Natalie Protasevich <protasnb@...il.com>,
Kernel Testers List <kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux PM List <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Linux SCSI List <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Wireless List <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
DRI <dri-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: 2.6.30-rc6: Reported regressions from 2.6.29
On Mon, 18 May 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> Btw., why did the patch (and the revert) make any difference to the
> test? Timing differences look improbable.
It's the change from
!signal_group_exit(signal)
to
!sig_kernel_only(signr)
and quite frankly, I still don't see the point.
The comment seems to be wrong too:
If SIGSTOP/SIGKILL originate from a descendant of container-init they are
never queued (i.e dropped in sig_ignored() in an earler patch).
If SIGSTOP/SIGKILL originate from parent namespace, the signal is queued
and container-init processes the signal.
since the bug was that the SIGSTOP (from within the same container) was
_not_ ignored like the comment says.
Linus
--
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