Subject: Re: yet another SA assertion failure with 3.0
To: None <email@example.com>
From: YAMAMOTO Takashi <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 11/09/2005 07:33:06
> > i don't think that you really need "allsusp" handing in that case.
> hmm, I think you're right. some LWP should wake up soon enough.
> this new patch seems to work, how does it look to you?
i think that "allsusp" can happen even for P_SA processes by
eg. artificial _lwp_suspend and _lwp_exit.
(well, _lwp_* syscalls are dangerous. :-)
so it needs explicit LSSUSPENDED checks like the non-SA case does.
otherwise looks ok to me.
btw, "ok to signal vp lwp" case seems missing break.