[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091007113049.GA3421@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 13:30:49 +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:
>
> > Perhaps, we should add the comment to explain that both SI_FROMUSER()
> > and si_fromuser() are only valid in the sending pathes.
>
> Yes. Also now that you put them both in a sentence together, it is clear
> that it is insane to have two different things with those two names that
> differ only in capitalization.
I think this doesn't matter because we need more cleanups. As for naming
I agree, si_fromuser() sucks and I'd be happy to send the patch which
renames it (or re-send these 2 patches).
The problem is, both SI_FROMUSER() and SI_FROMKERNEL() must die imho.
In fact I think they should never exist.
SI_FROMUSER(siptr) ((siptr)->si_code <= 0)
note "<=", this means this helper is unuseable. What we need is another
macro/inline which checks "si_code < 0" (or >= 0 depending on naming),
this helper should be used by sys_sigqueueinfo/etc which can not not use
SI_FROMXXX() because SI_USER is rightly forbidden. __send_signal() can
use the new helper too.
Other cleanups which imho makes sense:
- rename SEND_SIG_XXX
- redefine them to make sure SEND_SIG_NOINFO != NULL
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