Re: [PATCH for 2.5] preemptible kernel

[Nigel Gamble]

On Sat, 31 Mar 2001, george anzinger wrote:
> I think this should be:
> 	          if (p->has_cpu || p->state & TASK_PREEMPTED)) {
> to catch tasks that were preempted with other states.

But the other states are all part of the state change that happens at a
non-preemtive schedule() point, aren't they, so those tasks are already
safe to access the data we are protecting.

Nigel Gamble                                    [e-mail]
Mountain View, CA, USA.                         http://www.nrg.org/

MontaVista Software                             [e-mail]