From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3yT26S0d1MzDrD1 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2017 23:57:19 +1100 (AEDT) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 07:57:08 -0500 From: Josh Poimboeuf To: Miroslav Benes Cc: jeyu@kernel.org, jikos@kernel.org, pmladek@suse.com, lpechacek@suse.cz, pavel@ucw.cz, live-patching@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Oleg Nesterov , Michael Ellerman , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Andy Lutomirski , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, x86@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] livepatch: send a fake signal to all blocking tasks Message-ID: <20171103125708.tzgn45iabb5sl36i@treble> References: <20171031114853.841-1-mbenes@suse.cz> <20171031114853.841-2-mbenes@suse.cz> <20171102130916.y4jl5a2tuhkivpcr@treble> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 In-Reply-To: List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 09:02:50AM +0100, Miroslav Benes wrote: > On Thu, 2 Nov 2017, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 12:48:52PM +0100, Miroslav Benes wrote: > > > + > > > +/* > > > + * Sends a fake signal to all non-kthread tasks with TIF_PATCH_PENDING set. > > > + * Kthreads with TIF_PATCH_PENDING set are woken up. Only admin can request this > > > + * action currently. > > > + */ > > > +void klp_force_signals(void) > > > > Since "force" now has a separate meaning, it's a little confusing to > > have it in the name of this function. How about klp_send_signals() or > > klp_signal()? > > or klp_send_signal()? It can send more than one signal, so I'd prefer the plural form: klp_send_signals(). -- Josh