On 06/07, Jiri Kosina wrote:
>
> On Sun, 7 Jun 2015, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> > > I personally don't see a huge principal difference between
> > > "kthread_signal_dequeue() + kthread_do_signal_{stop,...}" vs. generic
> > > "kthread_do_signal()" that's just basically completely general and
> > > takes care of 'everything necessary'.
> >
> > Then why do we need the new API ?
>
> Well, in a nutshell, because of the "it's general and takes care of
> everything" part.
...
> Signal handling is just
> one of the piggy-backers on top of this general cleanup.
And to avoid the confusion: so far I only argued with the signal
handling part of this API. Namely with kthread_do_signal(), especially
with the SIG_DFL logic.
If we want somthing like kthread_iterant agree it should probably help to
handle the signals too. But afaics kthread_do_signal() doesn't really help
and certainly it is not strictly necessary.
Oleg.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
