Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Thu, 9 Oct 2003 02:23:18 +0200 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | [pm] Re: JFFS2 swsusp / signal cleanup. |
| |
Hi!
> > Should I do recalc_sigpending() instead of flush_signals(current)? > > Yes. You can do that unconditionally, too -- no need to do it depending > on an argument from the caller.
Yes, and it actually works that way. Good.
[Patrick, this patch is probably good idea, flush_signals has potential to loose some signal].
[flag argument can be killed, but I guess its bad idea to do it now].
Pavel
--- tmp/linux/kernel/power/process.c 2003-08-27 12:00:53.000000000 +0200 +++ linux/kernel/power/process.c 2003-10-05 21:15:21.000000000 +0200 @@ -49,10 +49,7 @@ pr_debug("%s entered refrigerator\n", current->comm); printk("="); current->flags &= ~PF_FREEZE; - if (flag) - flush_signals(current); /* We have signaled a kernel thread, which isn't normal behaviour - and that may lead to 100%CPU sucking because those threads - just don't manage signals. */ + recalc_sigpending(); /* We sent fake signal, clean it up */ current->flags |= PF_FROZEN; while (current->flags & PF_FROZEN) schedule(); -- When do you have a heart between your knees? [Johanka's followup: and *two* hearts?] - 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/
| |