On 11/07/22 13:53, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > Hi Valentin, > > On 7/11/22, Valentin Schneider <vschneid@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Thanks for the Cc. >> >> I'm not hot on the export of wake_up_state(), IMO any wakeup with >> !(state & TASK_NORMAL) should be reserved to kernel internals. Now, here >> IIUC the problem is that the patch uses an inline invoking >> >> wake_up_state(p, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE) >> >> so this isn't playing with any 'exotic' task state, thus it shouldn't >> actually need the export. >> >> I've been trying to figure out if this could work with just a >> wake_up_process(), but the sleeping pattern here is not very conforming >> (cf. 'wait loop' pattern in sched/core.c), AFAICT the signal is used to >> circumvent that :/ > > I don't intend to work on this patch more. If you'd like to ack the > trivial scheduler change (adding EXPORT_SYMBOL), that'd help, and then > this can move forward as planned. Otherwise, if you have particular > opinions about this patch that you want to happen, feel free to pick > up the patch and send your own revisions (though I don't intend to do > further review). Alternatively, I'll just send a patch to remove the > driver entirely. Hopefully you do find this ack-able, though. > I'm not for a blanket wake_up_state() export, however if we *really* need it then I suppose we could have a wake_up_process_interruptible() exported and used by __set_notify_signal().
