[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110425162758.GD30828@mtj.dyndns.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 18:27:58 +0200
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Nikita V. Youshchenko" <nyoushchenko@...sta.com>,
Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] signal: do_sigtimedwait() needs
retarget_shared_pending()
Hello,
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 06:01:15PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > Maybe it would be a good idea to introduce a new helper which checks /
> > enforces that the operation indeed is only unblocking?
>
> I hope nobody will change ->blocked directly, except this function
> and force_sig_info(). And daemonize/allow_signal/disallow_signal, but
> there are special and probably we can already kill this deprecated
> block/unblock code and forbid kernel_thread(CLONE_SIGHAND) + daemonize().
> In fact I think daemonize() should go away.
>
> So, I don't really think we need another helper to unblock something.
Oh I see. I thought there would be quite a number of places
unblocking directly. If that's not the case, it's fine with me.
> > Also, it can
> > be a pure preference but I think _locked suffix is better / more
> > common for APIs which expect the caller to be responsible for locking.
>
> Again, I can rename... Cough, but in this case please simply suggest
> another name. set_tsk_blocked_locked?
Oooh, blocked_locked, didn't see that one coming. Maybe
set_tsk_sigmask() and set_tsk_sigmask_locked()? I prefer sigmask to
blocked anyway, so...
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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