Re: [PATCH 2/2] __down_common: use signal_pending_state()

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Ingo Molnar
Date: Monday, June 9, 2008 - 6:20 am

* Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx> wrote:


well but we had a schedule() bug around this whole topic of 
TASK_KILLABLE, so i'd say robustness trumps micro-optimizations. Is this 
really a big issue? The dual-ness of TASK_KILLABLE checks is a bit ugly, 
and it led to a bug as well.

	Ingo
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[PATCH 2/2] __down_common: use signal_pending_state(), Oleg Nesterov, (Wed Jun 4, 10:09 am)
Re: [PATCH 2/2] __down_common: use signal_pending_state(), Matthew Wilcox, (Wed Jun 4, 10:36 am)
Re: [PATCH 2/2] __down_common: use signal_pending_state(), Oleg Nesterov, (Wed Jun 4, 11:08 am)
Re: [PATCH 2/2] __down_common: use signal_pending_state(), Matthew Wilcox, (Wed Jun 4, 12:54 pm)
Re: [PATCH 2/2] __down_common: use signal_pending_state(), Ingo Molnar, (Mon Jun 9, 6:20 am)