Re: PATCH: NFS oops in 2.1.117

Linus Torvalds (torvalds@transmeta.com)
Fri, 21 Aug 1998 15:50:36 -0700 (PDT)

On Sat, 22 Aug 1998, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > The obvious breakage is that even though you disabled the IS_SOFT testing
> > for pending signals, you didn't do the "current->state" thing right. Do
> > you now wonder why I thought you were just completely out to lunch?
>
> IS_SOFT() is a macro of 0 - that is it was disabled. The IS_SOFT was wrong
> anyway - soft is times out, hard is doesnt time out, intr is interruptible
>
> The current->state thing being what - the TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE/UNINTERRUPTIBLE ?

If you expect to get signals, you'd better have INTERRUPTIBLE, but exactly
because IS_SOFT was disabled it meant that you essentially checked for
signals even though you asked the scheduler to not wake you up for them.
See?

> I left that for the moment. I didnt think that could cause signals to be
> misdelivered.

It would cause them to not be delievered at all.

Well, they'd be delivered, but you wouldn't be woken up by them, so..

Linus

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html