Michal Hocko writes:
>On Tue 15-09-20 15:47:37, Chris Down wrote:
>> [email protected] writes:
>> > + if (signal_pending(current))
>> > + return;
>>
>> This doesn't match your patch title, please update it. :-)
>
>I have to admit I have completely missed this and I think that this
>should better be fatal_signal_pending because that would make sure that
>the userspace will not see an incomplete operation. This is a general
>practice for other bail outs as well.
Oh sorry, to be clear, I meant the patch should match the title, not the other
way around.
On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 12:26 AM Chris Down <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Michal Hocko writes:
> >On Tue 15-09-20 15:47:37, Chris Down wrote:
> >> [email protected] writes:
> >> > + if (signal_pending(current))
> >> > + return;
> >>
> >> This doesn't match your patch title, please update it. :-)
> >
> >I have to admit I have completely missed this and I think that this
> >should better be fatal_signal_pending because that would make sure that
> >the userspace will not see an incomplete operation. This is a general
> >practice for other bail outs as well.
>
> Oh sorry, to be clear, I meant the patch should match the title, not the other
> way around.
My apologies about that. In my first version of patch, it's
'fatal_signal_pending'.
But in this version, I used the wrong branch. I will update it now.
Best wishes
Chunxin