> Well I just took a quick look through them to be certain > and I don't see anything that would. Even inside of the guts of > request firmware. So I'm pretty certain that SIGTERM was something > originally copied from another kernel_thread implementation and > wound up being dead code. Not at all, it was all written from scratch (so now you know who to blame :) ). And the signal *is* used, as explained in my reply to your original email. Ciao, Duncan.
