On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 01:19:11PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > That is also the reason I couldn't do wait_task_inactive(task, 0) > > Ah, I din't notice this patch uses wait_task_inactive(child, 0), > I think it should do wait_task_inactive(child, __TASK_TRACED).
Shouldn't we then switch wait_task_inactive() so have & matching instead of the current ==. _______________________________________________ linux-um mailing list linux-um@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-um
