Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 03:25:53 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 03:25:53 -0500 Received: from jive.SoftHome.net ([66.54.152.27]:54147 "HELO jive.SoftHome.net") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 03:25:52 -0500 From: prash_t@softhome.net To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Inconsistency in changing the state of task ?? Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 01:36:20 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [32.97.110.72] Message-ID: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 718 Lines: 19 Hi, while browsing through fs/select.c file of 2.4.19, I came across two DIFFERENT ways of changing the state of the current task in do_select(): set_current_state = TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE; AND current->state = TASK_RUNNING; I am curious to know if the second line of code doesn't cause any problem in SMP systems. I also see the same situation in do_poll(). Please cc to my id since I am not subscribed to the mailing list. Thanks Prashanth - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/