Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 16:15:40 +0400
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru>
To: akpm@linux-foundation.org
Cc: torvalds@linux-foundation.org, roland@redhat.com, mingo@elte.hu,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Q: wait_task_inactive() and !CONFIG_SMP && CONFIG_PREEMPT
Message-ID: <20080727121540.GB178@tv-sign.ru>
References: <200807260245.m6Q2jwB4012297@imap1.linux-foundation.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200807260245.m6Q2jwB4012297@imap1.linux-foundation.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 686
Lines: 18

Without CONFIG_SMP wait_task_inactive() is noop, this doesn't look right.
Shouldn't we also take CONFIG_PREEMPT into account?

Not that it really matters, just curious. kthread_bind() itself could be
noop without CONFIG_SMP. ptrace_check_attach() shouldn't have real problems,
but still.


Also, the !SMP version of wait_task_inactive() always returns 1, this
doesn't conform to the comment near kernel/sched.c:wait_task_inactive().

Oleg.

--
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/