[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190424132502.GE16167@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2019 15:25:03 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>
Cc: Zhenliang Wei <weizhenliang@...wei.com>, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
colona@...sta.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, arnd@...db.de,
tglx@...utronix.de, deepa.kernel@...il.com,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] signal: trace_signal_deliver when signal_group_exit
On 04/24, Christian Brauner wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 08:52:38PM +0800, Zhenliang Wei wrote:
>
> > Reviewed-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Yes, but ...
> > Reported-by: kbuild test robot <lkp@...el.com>
Hmm, really?
> > --- a/kernel/signal.c
> > +++ b/kernel/signal.c
> > @@ -2441,6 +2441,8 @@ bool get_signal(struct ksignal *ksig)
> > if (signal_group_exit(signal)) {
> > ksig->info.si_signo = signr = SIGKILL;
> > sigdelset(¤t->pending.signal, SIGKILL);
> > + trace_signal_deliver(SIGKILL, SEND_SIG_NOINFO,
> > + &sighand->action[signr - 1]);
>
> Hm, sorry for being the really nitpicky person here. Just for the sake
> of consistency how about we do either:
>
> + trace_signal_deliver(SIGKILL, SEND_SIG_NOINFO,
> + &sighand->action[SIGKILL - 1]);
>
> or
>
> + trace_signal_deliver(signr, SEND_SIG_NOINFO,
> + &sighand->action[signr - 1]);
Agreed!
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists