From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail172.messagelabs.com (mail172.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.3]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D9246B002C for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2011 08:44:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from d01relay07.pok.ibm.com (d01relay07.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.147]) by e8.ny.us.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id p9ACT47U020599 for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2011 08:29:04 -0400 Received: from d01av04.pok.ibm.com (d01av04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.64]) by d01relay07.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id p9ACiNRe831566 for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2011 08:44:23 -0400 Received: from d01av04.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av04.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id p9ACiLB4010638 for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2011 08:44:22 -0400 Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 17:55:56 +0530 From: Srikar Dronamraju Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3.1.0-rc4-tip 26/26] uprobes: queue signals while thread is singlestepping. Message-ID: <20111010122556.GB16268@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: Srikar Dronamraju References: <20110920115938.25326.93059.sendpatchset@srdronam.in.ibm.com> <20110920120517.25326.57657.sendpatchset@srdronam.in.ibm.com> <1317128626.15383.61.camel@twins> <20110927131213.GE3685@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20111005180139.GA5704@redhat.com> <20111006054710.GB17591@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20111007165828.GA32319@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20111007165828.GA32319@redhat.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Oleg Nesterov Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , Steven Rostedt , Linux-mm , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Linus Torvalds , Masami Hiramatsu , Hugh Dickins , Christoph Hellwig , Andi Kleen , Thomas Gleixner , Jonathan Corbet , Andrew Morton , Jim Keniston , Roland McGrath , Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli , LKML * Oleg Nesterov [2011-10-07 18:58:28]: > > Agreed, this looks much, much better. In both cases the task is current, > it is safe to change ->blocked. > > But please avoid sigprocmask(), we have set_current_blocked(). Sure, I will use set_current_blocked(). While we are here, do you suggest I re-use current->saved_sigmask and hence use set_restore_sigmask() while resetting the sigmask? I see saved_sigmask being used just before task sleeps and restored when task is scheduled back. So I dont see a case where using saved_sigmask in uprobes could conflict with its current usage. However if you prefer we use a different sigmask to save and restore, I can make it part of the utask structure. -- Thanks and Regards Srikar -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org