Subject: Re: yet another SA assertion failure with 3.0
To: None <email@example.com>
From: YAMAMOTO Takashi <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 11/11/2005 11:23:48
> the SA code will put LWPs into LSSUSPENDED state also,
> and I can't tell if those making those LWPs runnable
> unexpectedly would cause other problems.
lwps holding VP, which kpsignal2() examines,
can't get LSSUSPENDED without _lwp_* syscalls, afaik.
> a simpler way to avoid this problem would be to disallow
> _lwp_suspend() and _lwp_continue() for SA processes.
> there doesn't seem to be any value in allowing an application
> to fight with the SA subsystem for control of LWPs.
are there any users of these syscalls at all? :-)
i guess that these syscalls and SA shouldn't share
the same "suspended" state.