lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Oct]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: 8139too termination
From
On Mon, Oct 29, 2001 at 04:30:40PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Robert Kuebel wrote:
> >
> > what about changing doing
> > spin_lock_irq(&current->sigmask_lock);
> > sigfillset(&current->blocked); /* block all sig's */
> > recalc_sigpending(current);
> > spin_unlock_irq(&current->sigmask_lock);
> >
> > instead of
> >
> > spin_lock_irq(&current->sigmask_lock);
> > sigemptyset(&current->blocked);
> > recalc_sigpending(current);
> > spin_unlock_irq(&current->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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:18    [W:0.045 / U:2.084 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site