[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110323170708.GA24304@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 18:07:08 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: roland@...hat.com, jan.kratochvil@...hat.com,
vda.linux@...glemail.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
indan@....nu
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/8] job control: Notify the real parent of job control
events regardless of ptrace
On 03/23, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 05:46:57PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > Ooh, on a related note, we probably want to change
> > > do_notify_parent_cldstop() too. tsk->group_leader->real_parent is
> > > used as the delivery target when !@..._ptracer. This is the same with
> > > tsk->real_parent and the code has been like this for a long time but
> > > is a bit confusing.
> >
> > Yes, although in this case we do
> >
> > tsk = tsk->group_leader;
> > parent = tsk->real_parent;
> >
> > We need to change tsk to report the correct si_pid. But we could do
> >
> > parent = tsk->real_parent;
> > tsk = tsk->group_leader;
> >
> > not sure this looks less confusing.
>
> They themselves are about the same but the inconsistency with the
> is_real_parent() test is a bit confusing, I think. If we're testing
> for duplicates by testing ->real_parent against ->parent then the
> actual delivery should be also be using ->real_parent and ->parent,
> so...
Hmm. So I misunderstood you. And still can't understand...
Could you explain how should we change do_notify_parent_cldstop()?
I am just curious.
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