Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1159959
| From | Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 11/18] jffs2: Convert jffs2_gcd_mtd kthread into the iterant API |
| Date | 2015-06-06 23:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <pytYR-414-11@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <py1pT-3Kb-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <py1pT-3Kb-21@gated-at.bofh.it> <pytFw-3E8-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Sat, 6 Jun 2015, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Still I personally dislike the new kthread_sigaction() API. I agree,
> a couple if signal helpers for kthreads make sense. Say,
>
> void kthread_do_signal_stop(void)
> {
> spin_lock_irq(&curtent->sighand->siglock);
> if (current->jobctl & JOBCTL_STOP_DEQUEUED)
> __set_current_state(TASK_STOPPED);
> spin_unlock_irq(¤t->sighand->siglock);
>
> schedule();
> }
... not to mention the fact that 'STOP' keyword in relation to kthreads
has completely different meaning today, which just contributes to overall
confusion; but that's an independent story.
>
> and probably even "int kthread_signal_deque(void)".
>
> But personally I do not think kthread_do_signal() makes a lot of sense...
Would it be possible for you to elaborate a little bit more why you think
so ... ?
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'. That being said, my relationship to signal
handling code is of course much less intimate compared to yours, so I am
really curious what particular objections to that interface have.
Thanks a lot,
--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [RFC PATCH 11/18] jffs2: Convert jffs2_gcd_mtd kthread into the iterant API Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2015-06-06 23:20 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH 11/18] jffs2: Convert jffs2_gcd_mtd kthread into the iterant API Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz> - 2015-06-06 23:40 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH 11/18] jffs2: Convert jffs2_gcd_mtd kthread into the iterant API Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2015-06-07 00:40 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH 11/18] jffs2: Convert jffs2_gcd_mtd kthread into the iterant API Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz> - 2015-06-07 00:50 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH 11/18] jffs2: Convert jffs2_gcd_mtd kthread into the iterant API Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2015-06-07 01:10 +0200
csiph-web