[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120210212532.GL19392@google.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 13:25:32 -0800
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Anton Vorontsov <anton.vorontsov@...aro.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] signal: give SEND_SIG_FORCED more power to beat
SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE
Hello, Oleg,.
I can't provide any meaningful constructive criticism but have one
bike-shedding one.
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 09:00:21PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> diff --git a/kernel/signal.c b/kernel/signal.c
> index c73c428..bfb2b97 100644
> --- a/kernel/signal.c
> +++ b/kernel/signal.c
> @@ -1059,7 +1059,8 @@ static int __send_signal(int sig, struct siginfo *info, struct task_struct *t,
>
> assert_spin_locked(&t->sighand->siglock);
>
> - if (!prepare_signal(sig, t, from_ancestor_ns))
> + if (!prepare_signal(sig, t,
> + from_ancestor_ns || (info == SEND_SIG_FORCED)))
How about the following indentation instead? :)
if (!prepare_signal(sig, t,
from_ancestor_ns || (info == SEND_SIG_FORCED)))
Overall, the changes look sane to me but I haven't really thought
about it deeply. Please feel free to add Reviewed-by for 2-4.
Thank you.
--
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