[PATCH 0/1] (Was: introduce for_each_process_thread_{break,continue}() helpers)

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 07/25, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> IMHO this makes sense in any case, but mostly this is preparation for
> another change: show_state_filter() should be preemptible. But this needs
> more discussion, I'll write another email/patch when I fully understand
> the hard-lockup caused by sysrq-t.

Yes, we need to do something with show_state_filter() anyway, I think.

OTOH, I believe this simple change in multi_cpu_stop() makes sense too
regardless.

Oleg.