linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 11/18] jffs2: Convert jffs2_gcd

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 7 Jun 2015 00:30:01 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
Cc:	Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.cz>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
	linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
	Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...marydata.com>,
	Anna Schumaker <anna.schumaker@...app.com>,
	linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, Chris Mason <clm@...com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
	live-patching@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 11/18] jffs2: Convert jffs2_gcd_mtd kthread into
	the iterant API

On 06/06, Jiri Kosina wrote:
>
> On Sat, 6 Jun 2015, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> > Still I personally dislike the new kthread_sigaction() API. I agree,
> > a couple if signal helpers for kthreads make sense. Say,
> >
> > 	void kthread_do_signal_stop(void)
> > 	{
> > 		spin_lock_irq(&curtent->sighand->siglock);
> > 		if (current->jobctl & JOBCTL_STOP_DEQUEUED)
> > 			__set_current_state(TASK_STOPPED);
> > 		spin_unlock_irq(&current->sighand->siglock);
> >
> > 		schedule();
> > 	}
>
> ... not to mention the fact that 'STOP' keyword in relation to kthreads
> has completely different meaning today, which just contributes to overall
> confusion; but that's an independent story.

Yes, agreed.

> > But personally I do not think kthread_do_signal() makes a lot of sense...
>
> Would it be possible for you to elaborate a little bit more why you think
> so ... ?

Please see another email I sent in reply to 06/18.

> I personally don't see a huge principal difference between
> "kthread_signal_dequeue() + kthread_do_signal_{stop,...}" vs. generic
> "kthread_do_signal()" that's just basically completely general and takes
> care of 'everything necessary'.

Then why do we need the new API ?

And I do see the difference. Rightly or not I belive that this API buys
nothing but makes the kthread && signal interaction more complex and
confusing. For no reason.

But!

> That being said, my relationship to signal
> handling code is of course much less intimate compared to yours,

No, no, no, this doesn't matter at all ;)

Yes I do dislike this API. So what? I can be wrong. So if other reviewers
like it I will hate them all ^W^W^W not argure. So please comment. I never
trust myself unless I can technically (try to) prove I am right. In this
case I can't, this is only my feeling.

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/