[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171103125708.tzgn45iabb5sl36i@treble>
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 07:57:08 -0500
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To: Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>
Cc: jeyu@...nel.org, jikos@...nel.org, pmladek@...e.com,
lpechacek@...e.cz, pavel@....cz, live-patching@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] livepatch: send a fake signal to all blocking
tasks
On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 09:02:50AM +0100, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Nov 2017, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 12:48:52PM +0100, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> > > +
> > > +/*
> > > + * Sends a fake signal to all non-kthread tasks with TIF_PATCH_PENDING set.
> > > + * Kthreads with TIF_PATCH_PENDING set are woken up. Only admin can request this
> > > + * action currently.
> > > + */
> > > +void klp_force_signals(void)
> >
> > Since "force" now has a separate meaning, it's a little confusing to
> > have it in the name of this function. How about klp_send_signals() or
> > klp_signal()?
>
> or klp_send_signal()?
It can send more than one signal, so I'd prefer the plural form:
klp_send_signals().
--
Josh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists