[PATCH] [POWERPC] Rework EXC_LEVEL_EXCEPTION_PROLOG code
galak at kernel.crashing.org
Fri May 2 03:48:55 EST 2008
On May 1, 2008, at 11:42 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 11:33:34AM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
>> Let me ask the question differently. Are there cases that some event
>> occurs in the system and a signal is delivered to the current process
>> regardless of what that process is.
> Yes, timers that expire based on CPU usage.
>> I'm guessing so, based on the tty example.
> I don't think tty interrupts would -- it'd go to the process group
> associated with the tty.
>> So for the specific case I'm looking at (kprobes & debug exceptions
>> from kernel space), I think its reasonable to BUG_ON() if
>>> flags changes such that TIF_SIGPENDING or TIF_NEED_RESCHED get set
>> we aren't from user-space.
> Why? It may not happen currently, but it seems more future-proof to
> copy the flags. And it's certainly not reasonable for normal
copying the flags isn't the issue. Its acting on the flags thats the
problem. I'm not 100% sure the C code that might clear the flags is
consistent on how it access them. So if one bit of code clears
task_struct->stack->thread_info->flags and other clears
thread_info(STACK)->flags we get into an issue on how to merge after
I'd rather be safe for now since we don't need to send a signal in the
debug from kernel case.
More information about the Linuxppc-dev