Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 7 Jun 2015 00:58:54 +0200 | From | Oleg Nesterov <> | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 11/18] jffs2: Convert jffs2_gcd_mtd kthread into the iterant API |
| |
On 06/07, Jiri Kosina wrote: > > On Sun, 7 Jun 2015, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > > I personally don't see a huge principal difference between > > > "kthread_signal_dequeue() + kthread_do_signal_{stop,...}" vs. generic > > > "kthread_do_signal()" that's just basically completely general and > > > takes care of 'everything necessary'. > > > > Then why do we need the new API ? > > Well, in a nutshell, because of the "it's general and takes care of > everything" part.
...
> Signal handling is just > one of the piggy-backers on top of this general cleanup.
And to avoid the confusion: so far I only argued with the signal handling part of this API. Namely with kthread_do_signal(), especially with the SIG_DFL logic.
If we want somthing like kthread_iterant agree it should probably help to handle the signals too. But afaics kthread_do_signal() doesn't really help and certainly it is not strictly necessary.
Oleg.
| |