From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: 2.6.30-rc6: Reported regressions from 2.6.29 Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 08:32:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: References: <_AjETDMbIoL.A.DcH.RYzDKB@chimera> <20090517073327.GC1583@elte.hu> <20090518145725.GB18607@redhat.com> <20090518151102.GA6241@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20090518151102.GA6241@elte.hu> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Adrian Bunk , DRI , Linux SCSI List , Jonathan Corbet , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux Wireless List , Kumar Gala , Natalie Protasevich , Martin Bammer , Linux ACPI , Network Development , Oleg Nesterov , Andrew Morton , Kernel Testers List , Jeff Garzik , Linux PM List List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 18 May 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > Btw., why did the patch (and the revert) make any difference to the > test? Timing differences look improbable. It's the change from !signal_group_exit(signal) to !sig_kernel_only(signr) and quite frankly, I still don't see the point. The comment seems to be wrong too: If SIGSTOP/SIGKILL originate from a descendant of container-init they are never queued (i.e dropped in sig_ignored() in an earler patch). If SIGSTOP/SIGKILL originate from parent namespace, the signal is queued and container-init processes the signal. since the bug was that the SIGSTOP (from within the same container) was _not_ ignored like the comment says. Linus