From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265682AbUBPRNv (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Feb 2004 12:13:51 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265710AbUBPRNu (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Feb 2004 12:13:50 -0500 Received: from websrv.werbeagentur-aufwind.de ([213.239.197.241]:17602 "EHLO mail.werbeagentur-aufwind.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265682AbUBPRMI (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Feb 2004 12:12:08 -0500 Subject: Re: kthread, signals and PF_FREEZE (suspend) From: Christophe Saout To: Jamie Lokier Cc: Rusty Russell , LKML , pavel@suse.cz In-Reply-To: <20040216165329.GB17323@mail.shareable.org> References: <1076890731.5525.31.camel@leto.cs.pocnet.net> <20040216034251.0912E2C0F8@lists.samba.org> <20040216165329.GB17323@mail.shareable.org> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1076951524.5881.1.camel@leto.cs.pocnet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 18:12:05 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Am Mo, den 16.02.2004 schrieb Jamie Lokier um 17:53: > Rusty Russell wrote: > > > That means that signal_pending() will return true for that process which > > > will make kthread stop the thread. > > > > Yes, the way they are currently coded. I had assumed that spurious > > signals do not occur. > > Yowch. Does suspend mean this warning in futex_wait is wrong? > > /* A spurious wakeup should never happen. */ > WARN_ON(!signal_pending(current)); > return -EINTR; I just tried it on my notebook. It works, no warning. I don't know how things work exactly. There is some stuff in the arch signal.c in do_signal that also handles PF_FREEZE.