Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 28 Mar 2012 14:08:35 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [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"?
| |