On Sun, Nov 06, 2005 at 05:46:09PM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > "Paul E. McKenney" wrote:
> > >
> > > + if (p->sighand == NULL) {
> > > + ret = 1;
> >
> > Oh, I think there is another problem here. I'll post a separate
> > message.
>
> Sorry, I was not clear. This problem is unrelated. Yes, I think we
> should drop the signal. But please note that ret = 1 (sig_ignored)
> means (surprise!) "reschedule and re-arm this timer right now" in
> cpu-timer case. It is not critical, but may be ret = 0 is better.
OK. Seems like the next firing of the timer would then see the
changed situation, so the current code should at least be safe.
Thoughts?
Thanx, Paul
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
