On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 04:16:24PM +0000, Al Viro wrote: > > All of these have in common that they try to handle signals in a kernel > > thread (which we don't even allow by default), and that they ignore the > > siginfo. I think they could mostly be replaced by an addition to the > > kthread API to allow a kthread to be killed by signals for legacy > > reasons. > > FWIW, there's a funny situation - all users of dequeue_signal_lock() > actually ignore info completely. I'm not saying that we ought to > stop returning it, but e.g. jbd part of that patch is simply Might aswell stick the discmiss into what was dequeue_signal_lock(). Which at that point should get a saner name (maybe thread_dequeue_signal ?) and lose all argument except maybe task_struct - not that it's nessecary, but it would mirror the other functions usually used around it. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
