[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190116233207.GA5868@hori1.linux.bs1.fc.nec.co.jp>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 23:32:07 +0000
From: Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>
To: Jane Chu <jane.chu@...cle.com>
CC: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: hwpoison: use do_send_sig_info() instead of
force_sig() (Re: PMEM error-handling forces SIGKILL causes kernel panic)
Hi Jane,
On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 09:56:02AM -0800, Jane Chu wrote:
> Hi, Naoya,
>
> On 1/16/2019 1:30 AM, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
>
> diff --git a/mm/memory-failure.c b/mm/memory-failure.c
> index 7c72f2a95785..831be5ff5f4d 100644
> --- a/mm/memory-failure.c
> +++ b/mm/memory-failure.c
> @@ -372,7 +372,8 @@ static void kill_procs(struct list_head *to_kill, int forcekill, bool fail,
> if (fail || tk->addr_valid == 0) {
> pr_err("Memory failure: %#lx: forcibly killing %s:%d because of failure to unmap corrupted page\n",
> pfn, tk->tsk->comm, tk->tsk->pid);
> - force_sig(SIGKILL, tk->tsk);
> + do_send_sig_info(SIGKILL, SEND_SIG_PRIV,
> + tk->tsk, PIDTYPE_PID);
> }
>
>
> Since we don't care the return from do_send_sig_info(), would you mind to
> prefix it with (void) ?
Sorry, I'm not sure about the benefit to do casting the return value
just being ignored, so personally I'd like keeping the code simple.
Do you have some in mind?
- Naoya
Powered by blists - more mailing lists