Hi Tycho,
I can't really read this patch now, possibly I am wrong, but...
On 11/30, Tycho Andersen wrote:
>
> @@ -263,16 +263,25 @@ void release_task(struct task_struct *p)
> */
> zap_leader = 0;
> leader = p->group_leader;
> - if (leader != p && thread_group_empty(leader)
> - && leader->exit_state == EXIT_ZOMBIE) {
> - /*
> - * If we were the last child thread and the leader has
> - * exited already, and the leader's parent ignores SIGCHLD,
> - * then we are the one who should release the leader.
> - */
> - zap_leader = do_notify_parent(leader, leader->exit_signal);
> - if (zap_leader)
> - leader->exit_state = EXIT_DEAD;
> + if (leader != p) {
> + if (thread_group_empty(leader)
> + && leader->exit_state == EXIT_ZOMBIE) {
> + /*
> + * If we were the last child thread and the leader has
> + * exited already, and the leader's parent ignores SIGCHLD,
> + * then we are the one who should release the leader.
> + */
> + zap_leader = do_notify_parent(leader,
> + leader->exit_signal);
> + if (zap_leader)
> + leader->exit_state = EXIT_DEAD;
> + } else {
> + /*
> + * wake up pidfd pollers anyway, they want to know this
> + * thread is dying.
> + */
> + wake_up_all(&thread_pid->wait_pidfd);
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
somehow I can't believe this is a good change after a quick glance ;)
I think that wake_up_all(wait_pidfd) should have a single caller,
do_notify_pidfd(). This probably means it should be shiftef from
do_notify_parent() to exit_notify(), I am not sure...
No?
Oleg.
