[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20100317215033.867F9BD1A@magilla.sf.frob.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 14:50:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] signal_struct->count must die, initial changes
> signal_struct->count in its current form must die.
Agreed. This series
Acked-by: Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
> - otoh, we really need to make task->signal refcountable,
> just look at the extremely ugly task_rq_unlock_wait()
> called from __exit_signals().
Another of many good reasons for...
> - we should change the lifetime rules for task->signal,
> it should be pinned to task_struct. We have a lot of
> code which can be simplified after that.
Yes, and sighand too. I think there will be quite a torrent of cleanup we
can do after that.
Remember too that we should really change de_thread() altogether. It has
long-standing signal-losing races that we should fix. Changing the
lifetime rules may complicate that, or not. But they'll tie in together,
and when we do that we'll replace the notify_count again with something
else entirely.
Thanks,
Roland
--
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