On 2014/07/29 21:07, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 05:26:34PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > >> To ignore SIGKILL ? > > > > > > Sorry, I thought this was a userspace change that caused this. > > > > > > As it's a kernel change, well, maybe that patch should be reverted... > > > > That's certainly viable. Oleg? > > I don't want to revert that patch. I agree that 786235ee should not be reverted to fix the problem of modules that receive sigkill from udev while they are initializing. In fact, while it may fix the case that was reported with mptsas, it would not fix cxgb4 because there are other code paths that check for pending signals and that abort (ex. pci_vpd_pci22_wait()). Reverting 786235ee effectively works around the problem by making modprobe unkillable. The proper solution would be to make sure that udev does not send sigkill to modprobe in the first place, either by making the timeout longer or by making the module probe faster. If you have other reasons for reverting 786235ee, then it's a different story. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
