[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070419154742.639556d1.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 15:47:42 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: <containers@...ts.osdl.org>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] smbfs: Remove unnecessary allow_signal
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 01:59:03 -0600
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com> wrote:
> From: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
>
> Signed-off-by: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
> ---
> fs/smbfs/smbiod.c | 2 --
> 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/smbfs/smbiod.c b/fs/smbfs/smbiod.c
> index 3e61b44..67176af 100644
> --- a/fs/smbfs/smbiod.c
> +++ b/fs/smbfs/smbiod.c
> @@ -298,8 +298,6 @@ out:
> */
> static int smbiod(void *unused)
> {
> - allow_signal(SIGKILL);
> -
> VERBOSE("SMB Kernel thread starting (%d) ...\n", current->pid);
>
Why is it unnecessary? afaict we can presently terminate smbiod
with a SIGKILL, and this change will alter (ie: break) that behaviour?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists