(change subject) On 03/11, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > Well, I don't think it is right to add this counter into task_struct. > > It should be per-process, signal_struct makes more sense. Or may be > mm_struct. > > Btw this is also true for parent_exec_id/self_exec_id, but this is > another story. In fact I think it would be nice to kill parent_exec_id/self_exec_id. Afaics, this only problem is clone(CLONE_PARENT | SIGXXX). I expect the answer is "no, can break existing applications", but I'll ask anyway. Can't we change this? IOW, can't we modify copy_process - p->exit_signal = (clone_flags & CLONE_THREAD) ? -1 : (clone_flags & CSIGNAL); + p->exit_signal = + (clone_flags & CLONE_THREAD) ? -1 : + (clobe_flags & CLONE_PARENT) ? current->group_leader->exit_signal : + (clone_flags & CSIGNAL); (or simply use SIGCHLD instead of group_leader->exit_signal). Then we can kill parent_exec_id/self_exec_id if me modify de_thread() to set ->exit_signal = SIGCHLD for every child. I am also asking because the change above looks like the fix to me. The child must not control its ->exit_signal, it is the parent who decides which signal the child should use for notification. And to me, clone(CLONE_PARENT | SIGXXX) looks like a violation of rule above. Oleg. -- 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
