Messages in this thread | | | From | Nigel Cunningham <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Rt-tester makes freezing processes fail. | Date | Sat, 15 Jul 2006 08:38:49 +1000 |
| |
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] | |