[lkml]   [2015]   [Jun]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 11/18] jffs2: Convert jffs2_gcd_mtd kthread into the iterant API
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(&current->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

 \ /
  Last update: 2015-06-07 00:01    [W:0.084 / U:0.096 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site