lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jun]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-06-24 15:45    [W:9.167 / U:0.032 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site