On Tue, 4 Apr 2017 09:13:02 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 11:21:26AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Sat, 01 Apr 2017 12:50:59 +0200
> > Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > Locking an rt mutex killable does not work because signal handling is
> > > restricted to TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE.
> > >
> > > Use signal_pending_state() unconditionaly.
> >
> > Does this mean rt mutex killable is not INTERRUPTIBLE? because the
> > change log seems to just assume that.
>
> > > - if (unlikely(state == TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE)) {
>
> #define TASK_KILLABLE (TASK_WAKEKILL | TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE)
>
>
> I don't think we need to consider people who don't know where to find
> the TASK_state definitions.
No where in the change log did it mention TASK_KILLABLE. It only talked
about "rt mutex killable". Yeah, I can figure this out, but that
doesn't change that the fact that it was a weak change log.
Thomas has yelled at me for some of my change logs in the past that
were better than this ;-)
-- Steve
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
