lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Mar]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] sysrq: Use SEND_SIG_FORCED instead of force_sig()
    On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 22:52:54 +0200
    Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:

    > On 03/26, Andrew Morton wrote:
    > >
    > > > --- a/drivers/tty/sysrq.c
    > > > +++ b/drivers/tty/sysrq.c
    > > > @@ -329,7 +329,7 @@ static void send_sig_all(int sig)
    > > > if (is_global_init(p))
    > > > continue;
    > > >
    > > > - force_sig(sig, p);
    > > > + do_send_sig_info(sig, SEND_SIG_FORCED, p, true);
    > > > }
    > > > read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
    > > > }
    > >
    > > It's unclear how serious this race is (I'm guessing "not very"),
    >
    > Well yes, I think that the problems are not very serious.
    >
    > > but
    > > this patch looks like 3.3 material anyway, yes?
    >
    > No, this depends on 629d362b9950166c6fac2aa8425db34d824bb043
    > "signal: give SEND_SIG_FORCED more power to beat SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE".

    oop, I meant "this patch looks like 3.4 material"?


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2012-03-28 23:11    [W:0.038 / U:29.808 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site