From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Oleg Nesterov Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] signals: SEND_SIG_NOINFO should be considered as SI_FROMUSER() Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 15:37:32 +0200 Message-ID: <20091006133732.GB8628@redhat.com> References: <4AC608BE.9020805@fr.ibm.com> <20091003171029.GA30442@us.ibm.com> <20091004021844.GA21006@redhat.com> <20091004021918.GB21006@redhat.com> <20091006073100.4184128@magilla.sf.frob.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20091006073100.4184128-nL1rrgvulkc2UH6IwYuUx0EOCMrvLtNR@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org Errors-To: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org To: Roland McGrath Cc: linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Linux Containers , Andrew Morton , Sukadev Bhattiprolu , Daniel Lezcano List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org On 10/06, Roland McGrath wrote: > > This whole series looks fine to me. I think in commenting and cleaning up > any of this, it bears explicit mention that (almost) every signal is > potentially reduced to SI_USER. Yes, > but your logs and comments are not explicit about the relationship > between that logic and what's implicit in the queue-exhaustion behavior. Yes. the changelog for 3/4 mentions that this SI_USER doesn't really mean SI_FROMUSER(), but I agree I should have been more explicit. Perhaps, we should add the comment to explain that both SI_FROMUSER() and si_fromuser() are only valid in the sending pathes. Fortunately get_signal_to_deliver and friends do not care about the origination of the signal. Oleg. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757416AbZJFNm5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Oct 2009 09:42:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757299AbZJFNm4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Oct 2009 09:42:56 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:53203 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756411AbZJFNm4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Oct 2009 09:42:56 -0400 Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 15:37:32 +0200 From: Oleg Nesterov To: Roland McGrath Cc: Andrew Morton , Sukadev Bhattiprolu , Daniel Lezcano , Sukadev Bhattiprolu , Linux Containers , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] signals: SEND_SIG_NOINFO should be considered as SI_FROMUSER() Message-ID: <20091006133732.GB8628@redhat.com> References: <4AC608BE.9020805@fr.ibm.com> <20091003171029.GA30442@us.ibm.com> <20091004021844.GA21006@redhat.com> <20091004021918.GB21006@redhat.com> <20091006073100.4184128@magilla.sf.frob.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20091006073100.4184128@magilla.sf.frob.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 10/06, Roland McGrath wrote: > > This whole series looks fine to me. I think in commenting and cleaning up > any of this, it bears explicit mention that (almost) every signal is > potentially reduced to SI_USER. Yes, > but your logs and comments are not explicit about the relationship > between that logic and what's implicit in the queue-exhaustion behavior. Yes. the changelog for 3/4 mentions that this SI_USER doesn't really mean SI_FROMUSER(), but I agree I should have been more explicit. Perhaps, we should add the comment to explain that both SI_FROMUSER() and si_fromuser() are only valid in the sending pathes. Fortunately get_signal_to_deliver and friends do not care about the origination of the signal. Oleg.