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    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site