On 03/04, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> /*
> - * Flush all pending signals for this kthread.
> + * Flush all pending signals for this kthread. Please note that this interface
> + * shouldn't be and if there is a need for it then it should be clearly
> + * documented why.
> + *
> + * Existing users should be double checked because most of them are likely
> + * obsolete. Kernel threads are not on the receiving end of signal delivery
> + * unless they explicitly request that by allow_signal() and in that case
> + * flush_signals is almost always a bug
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I still think this is too strong statement...
Even if it seems that most current users of flush_signals() are wrong.
> because signal should be processed
> + * by kernel_dequeue_signal rather than dropping them on the floor.
Yes, but to remind we need some cleanups to ensure that
s/flush_signals/kernel_dequeue_signal/ is always "safe" even when only a
single signal is allowed,
> The only
> + * exception when flush_signals could be used is a micro-optimization when
> + * only a single signal is allowed when retreiving the specific signal number
> + * is not needed. Please document this usage.
> */
Agreed.
Oleg.
