Hi, On Tuesday, 5 December 2006 15:26, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tuesday, 5 December 2006 15:12, Pavel Machek wrote: > > Hi! > > > > > > > Actually, what do you think about this patch? It removes special > > > > > handling of TASK_TRACED, and should do the trick, too... > > > > > > > > I was surprised, but the patch seems to work okay. Can you replace > > > > your 1/2 with this one, and see what breaks? > > > > > > I don't think anything will _visibly_ break, because (1) even if the traced > > > task has TIF_SIGPENDING set unnecessarily, it will just notice there is no > > > real signal to handle and continue and > > > > We are generating spurious wakeups, but as you noticed, that should be > > okay. > > So we can move the check to freezeable(). Fine. Oops, not so. We have to reset PF_FREEZE for it too and freezeable() doesn't do that. Greetings, Rafael -- If you don't have the time to read, you don't have the time or the tools to write. - Stephen King
