Re: [PATCH 1/3] introduce PF_KTHREAD flag

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 06/23, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 13:47:06 -0700
> Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > I don't yet know how much additional damage will happen as a result.
> 
> Lots.
> 
> I restored the patches and just dropped the hunk:
> 
>   static int has_mm(struct task_struct *p)
>   {
> -       return (p->mm && !(p->flags & PF_BORROWED_MM));
>   }
>   
>   /**
> --- 86,92 ----
>   
>   static int has_mm(struct task_struct *p)
>   {
> +       return (p->mm && !(p->flags & PF_KTHREAD));
>   }
> 
> due to that function having been turned into:
> 
> static inline bool should_send_signal(struct task_struct *p)
> {
>         return !(p->flags & PF_FREEZER_NOSIG);
> }
>
> Please check the result?

Thanks, this looks OK.

Rafael, can't freezer just use PF_KTHREAD (which btw kills PF_BORROWED_MM)
instead of the new PF_FREEZER_NOSIG flag? They look very similar, please
look at

	"[PATCH 1/3] introduce PF_KTHREAD flag"
	http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121233423530812

	"[PATCH 2/3] kill PF_BORROWED_MM in favour of PF_KTHREAD"
	http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121233423530820

Oleg.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/