On 02/15, Al Viro wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 06:43:45PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > So basically we want a different condition for "can we just go ahead and > > > free that sucker", right? Instead of "it's on the list, shan't free it" > > > it ought to be something like "it's on the list or it is referenced by > > > ksiginfo". Locking will be interesting, though... ;-/ > > > > I guess yes... send_sigqueue() checks list_empty() too, probably nobody else. > > The trouble being, we might end up with > Q picked by collect_signal and and stuff into ksiginfo > Q resubmitted by timer code In this case the timer code should simply inc ->si_overrun and do nothing. IOW, list_empty() should be turned into is_queued(), and is_queued() should be true until dismiss_siginfo() which should also do do_schedule_next_timer(). I think. Oleg. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
