[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170506194256.GA21726@redhat.com>
Date: Sat, 6 May 2017 21:42:56 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-spi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] signal: Export signal_wake_up_state() to modules
On 05/05, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>
> I'm using signal_wake_up() to abort a task blocked on
> wait_for_completion_interruptible(), cfr. sh_msiof_slave_abort() in
> "spi: sh-msiof: Add slave mode support"
> (http://www.spinics.net/lists/devicetree/msg175575.html).
>
> Is exporting signal_wake_up_state() an acceptable solution?
> Alternatively, I can extract the code to abort an completion into a
> generic abort_completion() function, and export that.
I too do not think this is a good idea... signal_wake_up() or even
set_tsk_thread_flag() should never be used unless you actually send a
signal. Yes, freeze_task() does this too but note that recalc_sigpending()
checks freezing() and in this case we really want the target to enter the
get_signal() path.
And in fact I do not really understand why do you need it, it seems that
you can easily rework this code and avoid this hack.
Not to mention that sh_msiof_slave_abort() plays with struct completion
internals, this doesn't look good too.
Finally, clear_thread_flag(TIF_SIGPENDING) in sh_msiof_wait_for_completion()
looks wrong. Or it is only for kthreads?
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists