Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 19:59:58 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 19:59:37 -0500 Received: from t05-17.ra.uc.edu ([129.137.228.113]:54912 "EHLO cartman") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 19:59:36 -0500 Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 19:58:58 -0500 To: Andrew Morton Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 8139too termination Message-ID: <20011029195858.A649@cartman> In-Reply-To: <20011029181029.A320@cartman> <3BDDE5DF.71917D8F@zip.com.au>, <3BDDE5DF.71917D8F@zip.com.au> <20011029190817.B320@cartman> <3BDDF4B0.194E132F@zip.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3BDDF4B0.194E132F@zip.com.au> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i From: Robert Kuebel Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Oct 29, 2001 at 04:30:40PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > Robert Kuebel wrote: > > > > what about changing doing > > spin_lock_irq(¤t->sigmask_lock); > > sigfillset(¤t->blocked); /* block all sig's */ > > recalc_sigpending(current); > > spin_unlock_irq(¤t->sigmask_lock); > > > > instead of > > > > spin_lock_irq(¤t->sigmask_lock); > > sigemptyset(¤t->blocked); > > recalc_sigpending(current); > > spin_unlock_irq(¤t->sigmask_lock); > > > > and replacing the signal_pending() stuff in the loops of > > rtl8139_thread() with checks for tp->diediedie? > > If you block all the signals then the kill_proc() won't > bring the thread out of interruptible sleep? right, you would have to take out the kill_proc(). can't you just let the thread return and not use kill_proc()? i have been checking out the reiserfsd thread. i could be missing something. - 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/