Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 17 Aug 2011 20:26:59 +0200 | From | Oleg Nesterov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/1] kthreads: allow_signal: don't play with ->blocked |
| |
On 08/17, Tejun Heo wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 10:50:22PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote: > > On Tue, 2011-08-16 at 21:51 +0200, Tejun Heo wrote: > > > I agree with the patchset but given that daemonize() isn't all that > > > popular and you already posted most (or was it all?) conversions,
Yes, with the patches I sent daemonize() has no callers.
> but in this case it's an interface which is > quite unpopular and with relatively easy workaround (just use > kthread).
Agreed.
> The worst thing we can do regarding API change is silently changing > semantics while not changing the interface. > ... > Out-of-kernel user which depended on the combination working would now > be left with code which compiles fine but behaves differently, which > sucks big time.
Yes, this is of course possible.
> So, let's please collect all the > related patches into one series,
This is what I can't understand ;) This connects to your "How do you wanna route these" question in another thread.
> drop all in-kernel daemonize() users, > kill daemonize() and then change allow_signal() behavior.
OK, if we kill daemonize() without the deprecation stage, this is fine.
Initially I assumed it won't go away soon, and this sigdelset() is really nasty although minor.
Oleg.
| |