Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 29 Oct 2001 19:58:58 -0500 | Subject | Re: 8139too termination | From | Robert Kuebel <> |
| |
On Mon, Oct 29, 2001 at 04:30:40PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > Robert Kuebel wrote: > > > > what about changing doing > > spin_lock_irq(¤t->sigmask_lock); > > sigfillset(¤t->blocked); /* block all sig's */ > > recalc_sigpending(current); > > spin_unlock_irq(¤t->sigmask_lock); > > > > instead of > > > > spin_lock_irq(¤t->sigmask_lock); > > sigemptyset(¤t->blocked); > > recalc_sigpending(current); > > spin_unlock_irq(¤t->sigmask_lock); > > > > and replacing the signal_pending() stuff in the loops of > > rtl8139_thread() with checks for tp->diediedie? > > If you block all the signals then the kill_proc() won't > bring the thread out of interruptible sleep?
right, you would have to take out the kill_proc(). can't you just let the thread return and not use kill_proc()? i have been checking out the reiserfsd thread.
i could be missing something.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |