> Does a patch adding a TASK_KILLABLE state have a chance to get in (in
> 2.5)? Or can anybody thik of more elegant solution?
Often there's kernel state which needs to be kept consistent, and locks
which need to be released - just bailing out (as if you got an oops) isn't
What's wrong with the plan of just implementing the appropriate cleanup code
in each buggy or lazy piece of code which sleeps in state
TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE, and letting each be interruptible instead?
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.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 : Sun Sep 30 2001 - 21:00:58 EST