[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160127175427.GW6357@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 18:54:27 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] signals: work around random wakeups in sigsuspend()
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 05:41:54PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Why? It should work either way. Yes, signal_wakeup() can come right before
> __set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE) but this is fine, __schedule() must not
> sleep if signal_pending() == T,
Urgh yes, I always forget this :/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists