From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+willy=40w.ods.org-S1751278AbWCLOO5@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1751278AbWCLOO5 (ORCPT <rfc822;willy@w.ods.org>);
	Sun, 12 Mar 2006 09:14:57 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751314AbWCLOO5
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Sun, 12 Mar 2006 09:14:57 -0500
Received: from 213-239-205-147.clients.your-server.de ([213.239.205.147]:31720
	"EHLO mail.tglx.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751278AbWCLOO4
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sun, 12 Mar 2006 09:14:56 -0500
Subject: Re: [patch 5/8] hrtimer remove state field
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Reply-To: tglx@linutronix.de
To: Roman Zippel <zippel@linux-m68k.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0603121444530.16802@scrub.home>
References: <20060312080316.826824000@localhost.localdomain>
	 <20060312080332.274315000@localhost.localdomain>
	 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0603121302590.16802@scrub.home>
	 <1142169010.19916.397.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0603121422180.16802@scrub.home>
	 <1142170505.19916.402.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0603121444530.16802@scrub.home>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 15:15:17 +0100
Message-Id: <1142172917.19916.421.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.5.5 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Sun, 2006-03-12 at 14:55 +0100, Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Sun, 12 Mar 2006, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, 2006-03-12 at 14:26 +0100, Roman Zippel wrote:
> > > > softirq runs on CPU0
> > > > base->lock()
> > > > 
> > > > remove_timer(timer);
> > > > 
> > > > base->unlock()
> > > > 			signal of previous expiry is delivered on CPU1
> > > > 			timer is reqeued.
> > 
> > 		------->  sig_ignore is set
> 
> ??? I can't find any symbol 'sig_ignore'.

Oh well. The application sets SIG_IGN for the signal in question, so
send_sigqueue() returns 1 because sig_ignored() returns 1.

Sorry for being imprecise.

	tglx