Re: Q: down_killable() is racy? or schedule() is not right?

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Dmitry Adamushko
Date: Wednesday, June 4, 2008 - 4:09 am

2008/6/3 Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru>:

[ for what it's worth ] I think, you are definitely right here.

The schedule() would be the right place to fix it. At the very least,
because otherwise callers are obliged to always check for
fatal_signal_pending(task) before scheduling with state ==
TASK_KILLABLE. e.g. schedule_timeout_killable().

Not very nice, IMHO.



I guess, it should be ! signal_pending(tsk).





-- 
Best regards,
Dmitry Adamushko
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Q: down_killable() is racy? or schedule() is not right?, Oleg Nesterov, (Tue Jun 3, 5:33 am)
Re: Q: down_killable() is racy? or schedule() is not right?, Dmitry Adamushko, (Wed Jun 4, 4:09 am)