[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091006133732.GB8628@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 15:37:32 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Daniel Lezcano <dlezcano@...ibm.com>,
Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@...ibm.com>,
Linux Containers <containers@...ts.osdl.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] signals: SEND_SIG_NOINFO should be considered as
SI_FROMUSER()
On 10/06, Roland McGrath wrote:
>
> This whole series looks fine to me. I think in commenting and cleaning up
> any of this, it bears explicit mention that (almost) every signal is
> potentially reduced to SI_USER.
Yes,
> but your logs and comments are not explicit about the relationship
> between that logic and what's implicit in the queue-exhaustion behavior.
Yes. the changelog for 3/4 mentions that this SI_USER doesn't really
mean SI_FROMUSER(), but I agree I should have been more explicit.
Perhaps, we should add the comment to explain that both SI_FROMUSER()
and si_fromuser() are only valid in the sending pathes. Fortunately
get_signal_to_deliver and friends do not care about the origination of
the signal.
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