Please cc networking patches to netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > The following patch is a first stab at removing this need. It makes it > so that in tcp_recvmsg() we also check kthread_should_stop() at any > point where we currently check to see if the task was signalled. If > that returns true, then it acts as if it were signalled and returns to > the calling function. This just doesn't seem to fit. Why should networking care about kthreads? Perhaps you can get kthread_stop to send a signal instead? Cheers, -- Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/ Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
