Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 10 Jul 2018 20:11:49 -0700 (PDT)
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To:     "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
cc:     Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Wen Yang <wen.yang99@zte.com.cn>,
        majiang <ma.jiang@zte.com.cn>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 10/11] signal: Push pid type from signal senders
 down into __send_signal
In-Reply-To: <20180711024459.10654-10-ebiederm@xmission.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.21.999.1807102011380.30072@i7.lan>
References: <877em2jxyr.fsf_-_@xmission.com> <20180711024459.10654-10-ebiederm@xmission.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21.999 (LFD 260 2018-02-26)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


On Tue, 10 Jul 2018, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> Use the information we already have to document which signals are sent
> to a group of processes and which signals are sent to a single process
> or a single thread.

Ahh.

This is much nicer than what I was playing with yesterday, trying to 
separate out the "bool group" logic in the signal sending code.

I didn't even think to use the pidtype. 

In my defense, I would never have done this whole pidtype cleanup that 
preceded this patch just to fix that odd fork() thing.

As I started reading this patch series, I went from "this seems a bit 
pointless" to "Ahhh...." and as I did that I started liking the series a 
lot more.

My initial reaction was "this seems over-engineered" when I just looked at 
the subject lines in my mailbox.

But as I progressed through the series, I really appreciated it. And this 
"10/11" was when I went "ok, I don't even need to see patch 11, I know 
what he's doing.

Anyway, take that as a long-winded ack for the approach and the 
appreciation of the series.

Of course, that's just reading through the patches, no actual _testing_ of 
them. But it looks good to me.

Thanks,

                Linus