Re: 2.6.30-rc6: Reported regressions from 2.6.29

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On Mon, 18 May 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> Btw., why did the patch (and the revert) make any difference to the 
> test? Timing differences look improbable.

It's the change from

	!signal_group_exit(signal)

to

	!sig_kernel_only(signr)

and quite frankly, I still don't see the point.

The comment seems to be wrong too:

    If SIGSTOP/SIGKILL originate from a descendant of container-init they are
    never queued (i.e dropped in sig_ignored() in an earler patch).
    
    If SIGSTOP/SIGKILL originate from parent namespace, the signal is queued
    and container-init processes the signal.

since the bug was that the SIGSTOP (from within the same container) was 
_not_ ignored like the comment says.

			Linus
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm

[Index of Archives]     [Linux ACPI]     [Netdev]     [Ethernet Bridging]     [Linux Wireless]     [CPU Freq]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux