Linux-kernel mailing list archive 1997-48,: Rejected patch.

# Rejected patch.

Rogier Wolff (R.E.Wolff@bitwizard.nl)
Wed, 3 Dec 1997 14:02:13 +0100 (MET)

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Bill Hawes: "Re: truncate() can fail"
- Previous message: Rogier Wolff: "Re: IDEDMA problems."
- Next in thread: Linus Torvalds: "Re: Rejected patch."
- Reply: Linus Torvalds: "Re: Rejected patch."

This patch got rejected because I'd been messing with that code myself.

{
if (in_interrupt())
printk("Aiee, killing interrupt handler\n");
+ if (current == task[0])
+ panic("Attempted to kill the idle task!");
fake_volatile:
current->flags |= PF_EXITING;
+ acct_process(code);
del_timer(&current->real_timer);
sem_exit();
kerneld_exit();

The question is: When we're in an interrupt, or "trying to kill the
idle task" and we get an "oops" and this happens, the question is, why
do we bother killing an innocent process anyway? Shouldn't the do_exit
function just return? The "thread" that caused the Oops might need to
be "shot", in this case an interrupt hander. Does killing the
userprocess help in this case?

Roger.

    --
    ** R.E.Wolff@BitWizard.nl ** +31-15-2137555 ** http://www.BitWizard.nl/ **
    Florida -- A 39 year old construction worker woke up this morning when a
    109-car freight train drove over him. According to the police the man was
    drunk. The man himself claims he slipped while walking the dog. 080897

- Next message: Bill Hawes: "Re: truncate() can fail"
- Previous message: Rogier Wolff: "Re: IDEDMA problems."
- Next in thread: Linus Torvalds: "Re: Rejected patch."
- Reply: Linus Torvalds: "Re: Rejected patch."