Re: windfarm got signal

[Nigel Cunningham <ncunningham@linuxmail.org>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1028 bytes --]

Hi.

On Thursday 22 June 2006 21:34, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-06-22 at 13:13 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > Thanks, I'll look and submit a patch. It does try_to_freeze() but also
> > checks for pending signals.
>
> Ah. The code is just in the wrong order:
> while (!kthread_should_stop()) {
>   try_to_freeze();
>   ...
>   schedule_timeout_interruptible(...);
>   if (signal_pending())
>     break;
> }
>
> Would it be correct to just move the try_to_freeze() before the
> signal_pending() statement?

Hmm. Will kthread_should_stop() be set if it should really exit? If so, 
perhaps you can just remove the signal_pending() check. Otherwise, you'd want 
to change the signal_pending() test to something like the "if 
(signal_pending() && !try_to_freeze())" to avoid any possibility of a race. 
(In this case, you should be able to remove the try_to_freeze() from above).

Regards,

Nigel
-- 
Nigel, Michelle and Alisdair Cunningham
5 Mitchell Street
Cobden 3266
Victoria, Australia

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 0 bytes --]