On Sat, 6 Jun 2015, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Still I personally dislike the new kthread_sigaction() API. I agree,
> a couple if signal helpers for kthreads make sense. Say,
>
> void kthread_do_signal_stop(void)
> {
> spin_lock_irq(&curtent->sighand->siglock);
> if (current->jobctl & JOBCTL_STOP_DEQUEUED)
> __set_current_state(TASK_STOPPED);
> spin_unlock_irq(¤t->sighand->siglock);
>
> schedule();
> }
... not to mention the fact that 'STOP' keyword in relation to kthreads
has completely different meaning today, which just contributes to overall
confusion; but that's an independent story.
>
> and probably even "int kthread_signal_deque(void)".
>
> But personally I do not think kthread_do_signal() makes a lot of sense...
Would it be possible for you to elaborate a little bit more why you think
so ... ?
I personally don't see a huge principal difference between
"kthread_signal_dequeue() + kthread_do_signal_{stop,...}" vs. generic
"kthread_do_signal()" that's just basically completely general and takes
care of 'everything necessary'. That being said, my relationship to signal
handling code is of course much less intimate compared to yours, so I am
really curious what particular objections to that interface have.
Thanks a lot,
--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
