On 2/11/23 11:57 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Sat, Feb 11, 2023 at 7:33 AM Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> OK, but then the ignore_sig change should not be needed at all, just >> changing that first bit to fatal_signal_pending() would do the trick? > > Right. That was my point. The 'ignore_sig' flag just doesn't make > sense. It was a hack for a case that shouldn't exist. Yep, just wanted to confirm that we'd _only_ do that first one and not go to sleep later on ignoring a signal as that could lead to issues. Your fatal signal pending suggestion is all we need. -- Jens Axboe
