[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4F6DAC28.301@nod.at>
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2012 12:12:40 +0100
From: Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
To: Anton Vorontsov <anton.vorontsov@...aro.org>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
uclinux-dist-devel@...ckfin.uclinux.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
user-mode-linux-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/10] um: Should hold tasklist_lock while traversing
processes
Am 24.03.2012 11:30, schrieb Anton Vorontsov:
> Traversing the tasks requires holding tasklist_lock, otherwise it
> is unsafe.
>
> p.s. However, I'm not sure that calling os_kill_ptraced_process()
> in the atomic context is correct. It seem to work, but please
> take a closer look.
os_kill_ptraced_process() calls a host function.
From UML's point of view nothing sleeps, so this is fine.
Acked-by: Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
Thanks,
//richard
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (491 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists