Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758254Ab1DYQ2F (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Apr 2011 12:28:05 -0400 Received: from mail-ey0-f174.google.com ([209.85.215.174]:40737 "EHLO mail-ey0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751385Ab1DYQ2C (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Apr 2011 12:28:02 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=xKFs5tBxZxATl70wermRVn5/7q/WnU+moOmuQjmfQ6ToLiDJpzfTW0qUgLjf6JiIJt Ohq0QhZ7SfwZgBIsCR5WwbODyq8tdGl8OMi6fPoQ1TwO8CWdirCYTCZMI2wTQ9XmyU34 2bo85bQg6wBP40UlnIDaVENX/wDKknsLbYF0A= Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 18:27:58 +0200 From: Tejun Heo To: Oleg Nesterov Cc: Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , "Nikita V. Youshchenko" , Matt Fleming , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] signal: do_sigtimedwait() needs retarget_shared_pending() Message-ID: <20110425162758.GD30828@mtj.dyndns.org> References: <20110418134421.GA15951@redhat.com> <20110418173224.GA27918@redhat.com> <20110423175901.GA484@redhat.com> <20110423180000.GD484@redhat.com> <20110425115253.GP17734@mtj.dyndns.org> <20110425160115.GC14934@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110425160115.GC14934@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1432 Lines: 37 Hello, On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 06:01:15PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > Maybe it would be a good idea to introduce a new helper which checks / > > enforces that the operation indeed is only unblocking? > > I hope nobody will change ->blocked directly, except this function > and force_sig_info(). And daemonize/allow_signal/disallow_signal, but > there are special and probably we can already kill this deprecated > block/unblock code and forbid kernel_thread(CLONE_SIGHAND) + daemonize(). > In fact I think daemonize() should go away. > > So, I don't really think we need another helper to unblock something. Oh I see. I thought there would be quite a number of places unblocking directly. If that's not the case, it's fine with me. > > Also, it can > > be a pure preference but I think _locked suffix is better / more > > common for APIs which expect the caller to be responsible for locking. > > Again, I can rename... Cough, but in this case please simply suggest > another name. set_tsk_blocked_locked? Oooh, blocked_locked, didn't see that one coming. Maybe set_tsk_sigmask() and set_tsk_sigmask_locked()? I prefer sigmask to blocked anyway, so... Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/