* Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> [2011-10-05 20:01:39]: > Srikar, I am still reading this series, need more time to read this > patch, but: Okay, > > On 09/27, Srikar Dronamraju wrote: > > > > I did a rethink and implemented this patch a little differently using > > block_all_signals, unblock_all_signals. This wouldnt need the > > #ifdeffery + no changes in kernel/signal.c > > No, Please don't. block_all_signals() must be killed. This interface > simply do not work. At all. It is buggy as hell. I guess I should ping > David Airlie again. > I could use sigprocmask instead of block_all_signals. The patch (that I sent out as part of v5 patchset) uses per task pending sigqueue and start queueing the signals when the task singlesteps. After completion of singlestep, walks thro the pending signals. But I was thinking if I should block signals instead of queueing them in a different sigqueue. So Idea is to block signals just before the task enables singlestep and unblock after task disables singlestep. Instead of using block_all_signals, I could use sigprocmask to achieve the same. Which approach do you suggest or do you have any other approach to look at? -- Thanks and Regards Srikar -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. 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>