[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87zhmo54j2.fsf@xmission.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2019 14:02:41 -0500
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, arnd@...db.de, dbueso@...e.de,
axboe@...nel.dk, dave@...olabs.net, e@...24.org, jbaron@...mai.com,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-aio@...ck.org,
omar.kilani@...il.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/5] signal: Teach sigsuspend to use set_user_sigmask
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> writes:
> On 06/10, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>
>> Personally I don't think anyone sane would intentionally depend on this
>> and I don't think there is a sufficiently reliable way to depend on this
>> by accident that people would actually be depending on it.
>
> Agreed.
>
> As I said I like these changes and I see nothing wrong. To me they fix the
> current behaviour, or at least make it more consistent.
>
> But perhaps this should be documented in the changelog? To make it clear
> that this change was intentional.
Good point. I had not documented it because I thought I was only
disabling an optimization.
Eric
Powered by blists - more mailing lists