content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Subject: RE: prepare_wait / finish_wait question
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 21:19:17 -0800
Message-ID: <A20D5638D741DD4DBAAB80A95012C0AED791DE@orsmsx409.jf.intel.com>
Thread-Topic: prepare_wait / finish_wait question
Thread-Index: AcOmrnjhHos+bFp7TrycmLNvwHQfgQCLadlQ
From: "Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky" <inaky.perez-gonzalez@intel.com>
To: "Manfred Spraul" <manfred@colorfullife.com>,
       "Andrew Morton" <akpm@osdl.org>
Cc: <mingo@elte.hu>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1063
Lines: 25


> From: Manfred Spraul

> Andrew Morton wrote:
> >Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com> wrote:

> >It would be neater to remove the task from the list _before_ waking it up.
> >The current code in there is careful to only remove the task if the wakeup
> >attempt was successful, but I have a feeling that this is unnecessary - the
> >waiting task will do the right thing.  One would need to think about that a
> >bit more.
>
> Doesn't work: the woken up thread could be woken up by chance through a
> signal, and then the task structure could go out of scope while wake_up
> is still running - oops. Seen on s390 with sysv msg.

What about some safe wake up mechanism like get_task_struct()/__wake_up()/
put_task_struct()??

I?aky P?rez-Gonz?lez -- Not speaking for Intel -- all opinions are my own (and my fault)
-
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/