Re: [PATCH 2/3] ptrace_untrace: use wake_up_process() instead of bogussignal_wake_up()

[Roland McGrath]

> Both ptrace_stop() and do_signal_stop() pathes always take ->siglock and
> do recalc_sigpending() after wakeup.

Yes, that's true.  But so what?  Why is this a reason to introduce yet
another unconditional (i.e. wrong) wake_up_process?  signal_wake_up does
the job fine, i.e. it calls wake_up_state the right way.  For exactly the
reasons you cited, setting TIF_SIGPENDING is both superfluous and
harmless--its effects will happen upon resume whether it was set or not.
So what's wrong with signal_wake_up?


Thanks,
Roland
--
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/