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:   Fri, 9 Oct 2020 10:01:57 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Miroslav Benes <mbenes@suse.cz>
To:     Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
cc:     Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        io-uring@vger.kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
        live-patching@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET RFC v3 0/6] Add support for TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL
In-Reply-To: <20201008145610.GK9995@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.21.2010090959260.23400@pobox.suse.cz>
References: <20201005150438.6628-1-axboe@kernel.dk> <20201008145610.GK9995@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (LSU 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 8 Oct 2020, Oleg Nesterov wrote:

> On 10/05, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > The goal is this patch series is to decouple TWA_SIGNAL based task_work
> > from real signals and signal delivery.
> 
> I think TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL can have more users. Say, we can move
> try_to_freeze() from get_signal() to tracehook_notify_signal(), kill
> fake_signal_wake_up(), and remove freezing() from recalc_sigpending().
> 
> Probably the same for TIF_PATCH_PENDING, klp_send_signals() can use
> set_notify_signal() rather than signal_wake_up().

Yes, that was my impression from the patch set too, when I accidentally 
noticed it.

Jens, could you CC our live patching ML when you submit v4, please? It 
would be a nice cleanup.

Thanks
Miroslav