[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1328299833.5882.211.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 15:10:33 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Carsten Emde <C.Emde@...dl.org>,
John Kacur <jkacur@...hat.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@...tmail.fm>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>,
Luis Goncalves <lgoncalv@...hat.com>, stable-rt@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RT 2/2 v4] preempt-rt/x86: Delay calling signals in int3
On Fri, 2012-02-03 at 19:40 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Stupid question. Do we really need to send the signal from here?
If we can do it correctly elsewhere, I'm fine with that too :-)
>
> Why force_sig(rt => T) can't set TIF_NOTIFY_RESUME instead? Then
> we can change do_notify_resume() to check TIF_FORCE_SIG_TRAP. And
> perhaps we can even avoid the new TIF_FORCE_SIG_TRAP, we could
> check task->stored_info_set.
You know the signal code much better than I do. If that works, I'm all
for that too. I really don't like the entry_64 solution, but it was what
I knew would work.
>
> In fact I feel this can be simplified even more, but I am not sure.
My strengths are in the entry_64.S code, not the signal code, so I fixed
it the best way that I felt. This does not imply my fix is the best. If
we can solve this in a clean way using the existing signal
infrastructure, I'm all for that.
-- Steve
--
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