On Sat, 31 Mar 2001, george anzinger wrote:
> I think this should be:
> if (p->has_cpu || p->state & TASK_PREEMPTED)) {
> to catch tasks that were preempted with other states.
But the other states are all part of the state change that happens at a
non-preemtive schedule() point, aren't they, so those tasks are already
safe to access the data we are protecting.
Nigel Gamble nigel@nrg.org
Mountain View, CA, USA. http://www.nrg.org/
MontaVista Software nigel@mvista.com
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Apr 07 2001 - 21:00:09 EST