[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.21.2010090959260.23400@pobox.suse.cz>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2020 10:01:57 +0200 (CEST)
From: Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
io-uring@...r.kernel.org, peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
live-patching@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET RFC v3 0/6] Add support for TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL
On Thu, 8 Oct 2020, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 10/05, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > The goal is this patch series is to decouple TWA_SIGNAL based task_work
> > from real signals and signal delivery.
>
> I think TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL can have more users. Say, we can move
> try_to_freeze() from get_signal() to tracehook_notify_signal(), kill
> fake_signal_wake_up(), and remove freezing() from recalc_sigpending().
>
> Probably the same for TIF_PATCH_PENDING, klp_send_signals() can use
> set_notify_signal() rather than signal_wake_up().
Yes, that was my impression from the patch set too, when I accidentally
noticed it.
Jens, could you CC our live patching ML when you submit v4, please? It
would be a nice cleanup.
Thanks
Miroslav
Powered by blists - more mailing lists