Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 15 Sep 2020 17:26:04 +0100
From:   Chris Down <chris@chrisdown.name>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc:     zangchunxin@bytedance.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] mm/vmscan: add a fatal signals check in drop_slab_node
Message-ID: <20200915162604.GB2581123@chrisdown.name>
References: <20200915132741.84869-1-zangchunxin@bytedance.com>
 <20200915144737.GA2581123@chrisdown.name>
 <20200915145533.GG3736@dhcp22.suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200915145533.GG3736@dhcp22.suse.cz>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.14.6 (2020-07-11)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Michal Hocko writes:
>On Tue 15-09-20 15:47:37, Chris Down wrote:
>> zangchunxin@bytedance.com 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.