![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 08:12:19AM +0000, Andrew Morton wrote: > However, if that wake_up_process() comes too early we'll just flip the new > thread out of TASK_INTERUPTIBLE into TASK_RUNNING and the schedule() in > kthread() will fall straight through. So perhaps we can simply remove the > wait_task_inactive()? If wake_up_process() comes too early (when the target task is still in TASK_RUNNING state), then won't wake_up_process() be a no-op? In which case, the target kthread will miss a wake-up event (kthread_start/kthread_stop)? -- Thanks and Regards, Srivatsa Vaddagiri, Linux Technology Center, IBM Software Labs, Bangalore, INDIA - 560017 - 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/ | |||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 13:01 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | ||||||||||