Re: kernel BUG at kernel/exit.c:792!

[Srivatsa Vaddagiri]

On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 05:23:07PM +0530, Raj wrote:
> 
> >Does it make sense to check for leader_task being alive
> >after the tasklist lock is grabbed and return immediately
> >if it is not alive (as the patch below does)?
> >
> >  
> >
> maybe i am wrong, but wouldnt a 'break' in the do-while suffice rather 
> than a goto ?
> 

I was not sure if the pid_alive check inside the do-while loop
is for leader_task only or for non-leader tasks also. 
If that check is for non-leader tasks also, then we would
like to retain it still ..

> /Raj

> --- base.c	2003-10-26 00:13:57.000000000 +0530
> +++ base.c.fix	2003-12-03 17:20:18.877679360 +0530
> @@ -1669,7 +1669,7 @@
>  	do {
>  		int tid = task->pid;
>  		if (!pid_alive(task))
> -			continue;
> +			break;
>  		if (--index >= 0)
>  			continue;
>  		tids[nr_tids] = tid;


-- 


Thanks and Regards,
Srivatsa Vaddagiri,
Linux Technology Center,
IBM Software Labs,
Bangalore, INDIA - 560033
-
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/