Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 24 Jun 2008 17:42:40 +0400 | From | Oleg Nesterov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/3] introduce PF_KTHREAD flag |
| |
On 06/23, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 13:47:06 -0700 > Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > > > I don't yet know how much additional damage will happen as a result. > > Lots. > > I restored the patches and just dropped the hunk: > > static int has_mm(struct task_struct *p) > { > - return (p->mm && !(p->flags & PF_BORROWED_MM)); > } > > /** > --- 86,92 ---- > > static int has_mm(struct task_struct *p) > { > + return (p->mm && !(p->flags & PF_KTHREAD)); > } > > due to that function having been turned into: > > static inline bool should_send_signal(struct task_struct *p) > { > return !(p->flags & PF_FREEZER_NOSIG); > } > > Please check the result?
Thanks, this looks OK.
Rafael, can't freezer just use PF_KTHREAD (which btw kills PF_BORROWED_MM) instead of the new PF_FREEZER_NOSIG flag? They look very similar, please look at
"[PATCH 1/3] introduce PF_KTHREAD flag" http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121233423530812
"[PATCH 2/3] kill PF_BORROWED_MM in favour of PF_KTHREAD" http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121233423530820
Oleg.
| |