On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 10:21:56 +0900 Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Yes. We already have facilities for it(ex, task_lock, lock_task_sighand). > And I think CAP_SYS_RESOURCE check in general function don't have a problem. > > Of course, it adds unnecessary overhead slightly but it's not a hot > path. What's problem for you to go ahead? Also, lock_task_sighand() would disable interrupts when acquiring sighand->siglock, which this patch doesn't do, but should. -- Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>