On Wed 12-07-23 21:09:25, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 11.07.23 22:47, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Tue 11-07-23 19:40:50, David Hildenbrand wrote: > > > Let's update the documentation that any signal is sufficient, and > > > add a comment that not only checking for fatal signals is historical > > > baggage: changing it now could break existing user space. although > > > unlikely. > > > > > > For example, when an app provides a custom SIGALRM handler and triggers > > > memory offlining, the timeout cmd would no longer stop memory offlining, > > > because SIGALRM would no longer be considered a fatal signal. > > > > Yes, and it is likely goot to mention here that this is an antipattern > > for many other kernel operations like IO (e.g. write) but it is a long > > term behavior that somebody might depend on and it is safer to reflect > > the documentation to the realitity rather than other way around (which > > would be imho better). > > > > You mean adding something like > > "Note that using signal_pending() instead of fatal_signal_pending() is an > anti-pattern, but slowly deprecating that behavior to eventually change it > in the far future is probably not worth the effort. If this ever becomes > relevant for user-space, we might want to rethink." Yes, something like that. Thanks! -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
