Hello Toni... > thanks a lot for every comment! /me too get many new knowledge just by replying your e-mail and re-reading about signal (last but not least, Jan Hudec's commentary). I think this thread is one of the best discussion I ever involved in. every person tries to write down his/her analysis, receive feedback from other, "recompile" and send new feedback and finally we have nice solution. Cheers everybody! > i've completed a version of the code using helper functions from > include/linux/kthread.h file and non blocking sock_recvmsg() as > suggested... this is working fine, if somebody were interested in > reveive a copy please ask to me. Instead of sending you code, I think it will be much appreciated if you write some kind of short article on how to solve this kind of problem on wiki.kernelnewbies.org. yes, there is mailing list archieve, but I think someone voluntarily write his experience on kernel hacking journey on Wiki is also valuable. Just my 2 cents thought. > from now i will try to do a version using blocking sock_recvmsg() and > trying to kill it cleanly with kthread_stop helper function. at this > moment, i've tried it and kthread_stop() can't interrupt > sock_recvmsg()... i will take a deep look on how they work to get it. Somehow I began to suspect that your kernel thread is put in uninteruptible state and refuse to back to runnable state since it waits for "something" (most likely data as many as you want). regards Mulyadi -- Kernelnewbies: Help each other learn about the Linux kernel. Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/kernelnewbies/ FAQ: http://kernelnewbies.org/faq/
