Custom Search

Re: [PATCH RT 2/2 v4] preempt-rt/x86: Delay calling signals in int3

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



On Fri, 2012-02-03 at 19:40 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:

> Stupid question. Do we really need to send the signal from here?

If we can do it correctly elsewhere, I'm fine with that too :-)

> 
> Why force_sig(rt => T) can't set TIF_NOTIFY_RESUME instead? Then
> we can change do_notify_resume() to check TIF_FORCE_SIG_TRAP. And
> perhaps we can even avoid the new TIF_FORCE_SIG_TRAP, we could
> check task->stored_info_set.

You know the signal code much better than I do. If that works, I'm all
for that too. I really don't like the entry_64 solution, but it was what
I knew would work.

> 
> In fact I feel this can be simplified even more, but I am not sure.

My strengths are in the entry_64.S code, not the signal code, so I fixed
it the best way that I felt. This does not imply my fix is the best. If
we can solve this in a clean way using the existing signal
infrastructure, I'm all for that.

-- 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


[RT Stable]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Yosemite]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Samba]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Device Mapper]     [Linux Resources]

Add to Google Powered by Linux