Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 13 Apr 2022 20:57:04 +0200
From:   Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     rjw@rjwysocki.net, mingo@kernel.org, vincent.guittot@linaro.org,
        dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, mgorman@suse.de,
        ebiederm@xmission.com, bigeasy@linutronix.de,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        tj@kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] sched,ptrace: Fix ptrace_check_attach() vs PREEMPT_RT
Message-ID: <20220413185704.GA30360@redhat.com>
References: <20220412114421.691372568@infradead.org>
 <20220412114853.842942162@infradead.org>
 <20220413132451.GA27281@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220413132451.GA27281@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Precedence: bulk

On 04/13, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> I like 1-2 but I need to read them (and other patches) again, a
> couple of nits right now.

Sorry, didn't have time to do this today, and now I am already sleeping.

But... on a second thought, it seems there is a better solution. If nothing
else it is simpler and doesn't duplicate the wait_task_inactive() logic.

How about the patch below instead? On top of 1/5.

Yes,yes, incomplete. in particular see the "!!!!!!!!!" comments. Just to
explain the idea.

Oleg.