lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Jul]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Rt-tester makes freezing processes fail.
Date
Hi.

On Friday 14 July 2006 18:17, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday 14 July 2006 01:37, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 09:18:43 +1000
> >
> > Nigel Cunningham <nigel@suspend2.net> wrote:
> > > Compiling in the rt-tester currently makes freezing processes fail.
> > > I don't think there's anything wrong with it running during
> > > suspending, so adding PF_NOFREEZE to the flags set seems to be the
> > > right solution.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Nigel Cunningham <nigel@suspend2.net>
> > >
> > > rtmutex-tester.c | 2 +-
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > diff -ruNp 9971-rt-tester.patch-old/kernel/rtmutex-tester.c
> > > 9971-rt-tester.patch-new/kernel/rtmutex-tester.c ---
> > > 9971-rt-tester.patch-old/kernel/rtmutex-tester.c 2006-07-07
> > > 10:27:46.000000000 +1000 +++
> > > 9971-rt-tester.patch-new/kernel/rtmutex-tester.c 2006-07-14
> > > 07:48:01.000000000 +1000 @@ -259,7 +259,7 @@ static int test_func(void
> > > *data)
> > > struct test_thread_data *td = data;
> > > int ret;
> > >
> > > - current->flags |= PF_MUTEX_TESTER;
> > > + current->flags |= PF_MUTEX_TESTER | PF_NOFREEZE;
> > > allow_signal(SIGHUP);
> > >
> > > for(;;) {
> >
> > I yesterday queued up the below patch. Which approach is most
> > appropriate?
>
> I prefer the one that makes these threads freeze (ie. the Luca's patch).

Ok.

Nigel
--
See http://www.suspend2.net for Howtos, FAQs, mailing
lists, wiki and bugzilla info.
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-07-15 00:41    [W:0.128 / U:0.324 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site