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:   Mon, 27 May 2019 17:04:09 +0200
From:   Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To:     Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@gmail.com>
Cc:     David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        "dbueso@suse.de" <dbueso@suse.de>,
        "axboe@kernel.dk" <axboe@kernel.dk>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>, Eric Wong <e@80x24.org>,
        Jason Baron <jbaron@akamai.com>,
        Linux FS-devel Mailing List <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-aio <linux-aio@kvack.org>,
        Omar Kilani <omar.kilani@gmail.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "stable@vger.kernel.org" <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] signal: Adjust error codes according to
 restore_user_sigmask()
Message-ID: <20190527150409.GA8961@redhat.com>
References: <4f7b6dbeab1d424baaebd7a5df116349@AcuMS.aculab.com>
 <20190523145944.GB23070@redhat.com>
 <345cfba5edde470f9a68d913f44fa342@AcuMS.aculab.com>
 <20190523163604.GE23070@redhat.com>
 <f0eced5677c144debfc5a69d0d327bc1@AcuMS.aculab.com>
 <CABeXuvo-wey+NHWb4gi=FSRrjJOKkVcLPQ-J+dchJeHEbhGQ6g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190524141054.GB2655@redhat.com>
 <CABeXuvqSzy+v=3Y5NnMmfob7bvuNkafmdDqoex8BVENN3atqZA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190524163310.GG2655@redhat.com>
 <CABeXuvrUKZnECj+NgLdpe5uhKBEmSynrakD-3q9XHqk8Aef5UQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CABeXuvrUKZnECj+NgLdpe5uhKBEmSynrakD-3q9XHqk8Aef5UQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Deepa,

it seems that we both are saying the same things again and again, and we
simply can't understand each other.

I'll try to write another email to restart this discussion. Tomorrow, somehow
I can't wake up today.

And let me repeat, of course I can be wrong. IOW, it is not that I am trying
to blame you for all this confusion.

On 05/24, Deepa Dinamani wrote:
>
> > > Ok, then can you point out what specifically was wrong with
> > > 854a6ed56839a?
> >
> > Cough. If nothing else the lost -EINTR?
>
> This was my theory. My basis behind the theory was [1](the issue with
> return value not being updated) above. And, you are saying this is ok.

I agree that "the lost -EINTR" above was not clear. I'll try to clarify
what I think is not OK.

Oleg.