On Monday, 23 July 2007 22:57, Agarwal, Lomesh wrote:
> Why do you need try_to_freeze in below patch? Shouldn't
> !freezing(current) checking is enough?
The try_to_freeze() is needed so that the process doesn't block the freezing
of tasks (it is supposed to call refrigerator() as soon as reasonably possible
when freezing(current) is true).
Alternatively, we might return 0 from do_sys_poll() if do_poll() has
returned 0 and both signal_pending(current) and freezing(current) are
true. Below is a patch that implements that. Could you please try it?
Greetings,
Rafael
---
fs/select.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
Index: linux-2.6.22-rc6-mm1/fs/select.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.22-rc6-mm1.orig/fs/select.c
+++ linux-2.6.22-rc6-mm1/fs/select.c
@@ -722,7 +722,7 @@ int do_sys_poll(struct pollfd __user *uf
walk = walk->next;
}
err = fdcount;
- if (!fdcount && signal_pending(current))
+ if (!fdcount && (signal_pending(current) && !freezing(current)))
err = -EINTR;
out_fds:
walk = head;
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
