Re: [PATCH 1/4] signals: SEND_SIG_NOINFO should be considered as SI_FROMUSER()

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



> I think this doesn't matter because we need more cleanups. 

Ok, good enough for me.

> The problem is, both SI_FROMUSER() and SI_FROMKERNEL() must die imho.
> In fact I think they should never exist.

I've always found all the si_code hackery rather confusing.  (Don't forget
the crucial magic (short) cast repeated three places in exit.c without a
comment between them!)

> Other cleanups which imho makes sense:
> 
> 	- rename SEND_SIG_XXX
> 
> 	- redefine them to make sure SEND_SIG_NOINFO != NULL

Sounds good to me.


Thanks,
Roland
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers

[Index of Archives]     [Cgroups]     [Netdev]     [Linux Wireless]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Forum]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux