Re: [PATCH 1/1] kthreads: allow_signal: don't play with ->blocked

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 08/16, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> Hello, Oleg.
>
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 09:44:50PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > allow_signal(sig) unblocks the signal. This was only needed because
> > we had the daemonize()'ed kthreads playing with signals. And daemonize()
> > can't use ignore_signals() but does sigprocmask(SIG_BLOCK) because it
> > was used after kernel_thread(CLONE_SIGHAND).
> >
> > Nobody does this any longer, we can remove this hack. And hopefully
> > we can deprecate daemonize() soon, all current users do not actually
> > need it.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> I agree with the patchset but given that daemonize() isn't all that
> popular and you already posted most (or was it all?) conversions,
> wouldn't it be better to do this in a single patchset?  ie. Convert
> all daemonize() users, kill daemonize(), and drop the hack from
> allow_signal().

May be... But please note that there are too different things.

daemonize() should be deprecated (imho), but this is a bit off-topic.
I think that a daemonize()'ed kthread should not play with allow_signal()
anyway. And nobody does, except rtl8712 which should be fixed afaics.

So this code is already unneeded, but looks confusing.



Tejun, Matt, I am sorry. I have to run away, I'll reply to other
emails tomorrow.

Thanks for review!

Oleg.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/