* Andrew Morton <[email protected]> wrote:
> > However I think cond_resched_lock and cond_resched_softirq also need fix
> > to make the semantic consistent.
> >
> > Please check the following patch.
> >
>
> Ah. I think the return value from these functions should mean
> "something disruptive happened", if you like.
>
> See, the callers of cond_resched_lock() aren't interested in whether
> cond_resched_lock() actually called schedule(). They want to know
> whether cond_resched_lock() dropped the lock. Because if the lock was
> dropped, the caller needs to take some special action, regardless of
> whether schedule() was finally called.
indeed ...!
> So I think the patch I queued is OK, agree?
yeah.
i think the really-right-fix would be to get rid of that SYSTEM_BOOTING
ugliness though ... I'm quite a bit uneasy about us doing different
things for an initrd app than for fully booted apps.
Ingo
-
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]
