[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070628170825.GA549@tv-sign.ru>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 21:08:25 +0400
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
To: Satyam Sharma <satyam.sharma@...il.com>
Cc: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RFC: have tcp_recvmsg() check kthread_should_stop() and treat it as if it were signalled
On 06/28, Satyam Sharma wrote:
>
> Second, we *must* break that tcp_recvmsg() inside the kthread's
> main loop, of course! We want it stopped, after all, and if we don't
> make it "break" out of that function, the kthread _will_never_exit_.
In that case this kthread is buggy. We have sock->sk_rcvtimeo.
> Please note that this
> whole thing is about functions that will _simply_*never*_exit_ever_
> _unless_ given a signal.
ditto. kthread should not do this.
OK, I suggest to stop this thread. I don't claim you are wrong, just
we think differently ;)
> >This is what I can't understand completely. Why should we check SIGKILL
> >or signal_pending() in addition to kthread_stop_info.k, what is the point?
>
> ... so kthread_stop_info will go away too.
it should go away regardless, we have patches. Still I see no point
to check signal_pending() in kthread_stop().
Oleg.
-
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