On 04/28, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 04:57:50PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> > > Shouldn't we then switch wait_task_inactive() so have & matching instead
> > > of the current ==.
> >
> > Sorry, I don't understand the context...
>
> This.. I've always found it strange to ha
On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 04:57:50PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > Shouldn't we then switch wait_task_inactive() so have & matching instead
> > of the current ==.
>
> Sorry, I don't understand the context...
This.. I've always found it strange to have wti use a different matching
scheme from ttw
On 04/28, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> 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, __TA
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_
On 04/28, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 05:14:57PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 04/26, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > >
> > > Asking wait_task_inactive to verify that tsk->__state == __TASK_TRACED
> > > was needed to detect the when ptrace_stop would decide not to stop
> > >
On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 05:14:57PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 04/26, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >
> > Asking wait_task_inactive to verify that tsk->__state == __TASK_TRACED
> > was needed to detect the when ptrace_stop would decide not to stop
> > after calling "set_special_state(TASK_TRACED)
On 04/26, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> Asking wait_task_inactive to verify that tsk->__state == __TASK_TRACED
> was needed to detect the when ptrace_stop would decide not to stop
> after calling "set_special_state(TASK_TRACED)". With the recent
> cleanups ptrace_stop will always stop after calling
"Eric W. Biederman" writes:
> "Eric W. Biederman" writes:
>
>> Asking wait_task_inactive to verify that tsk->__state == __TASK_TRACED
>> was needed to detect the when ptrace_stop would decide not to stop
>> after calling "set_special_state(TASK_TRACED)". With the recent
>> cleanups ptrace_stop
"Eric W. Biederman" writes:
> Asking wait_task_inactive to verify that tsk->__state == __TASK_TRACED
> was needed to detect the when ptrace_stop would decide not to stop
> after calling "set_special_state(TASK_TRACED)". With the recent
> cleanups ptrace_stop will always stop after calling set_sp
Asking wait_task_inactive to verify that tsk->__state == __TASK_TRACED
was needed to detect the when ptrace_stop would decide not to stop
after calling "set_special_state(TASK_TRACED)". With the recent
cleanups ptrace_stop will always stop after calling set_special_state.
Take advatnage of this b
10 matches
Mail list logo
