From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752176Ab1HPUKr (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Aug 2011 16:10:47 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:32564 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751844Ab1HPUKp (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Aug 2011 16:10:45 -0400 Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 22:07:21 +0200 From: Oleg Nesterov To: Tejun Heo Cc: Andrew Morton , Matt Fleming , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] kthreads: allow_signal: don't play with ->blocked Message-ID: <20110816200721.GA7712@redhat.com> References: <1313071035-12047-1-git-send-email-matt@console-pimps.org> <1313071035-12047-42-git-send-email-matt@console-pimps.org> <20110816180644.GJ29190@redhat.com> <20110816194427.GA6602@redhat.com> <20110816194450.GB6602@redhat.com> <20110816195121.GG2803@mtj.dyndns.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110816195121.GG2803@mtj.dyndns.org> 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 08/16, Tejun Heo wrote: > > Hello, Oleg. > > On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 09:44:50PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > allow_signal(sig) unblocks the signal. This was only needed because > > we had the daemonize()'ed kthreads playing with signals. And daemonize() > > can't use ignore_signals() but does sigprocmask(SIG_BLOCK) because it > > was used after kernel_thread(CLONE_SIGHAND). > > > > Nobody does this any longer, we can remove this hack. And hopefully > > we can deprecate daemonize() soon, all current users do not actually > > need it. > > > > Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov > > I agree with the patchset but given that daemonize() isn't all that > popular and you already posted most (or was it all?) conversions, > wouldn't it be better to do this in a single patchset? ie. Convert > all daemonize() users, kill daemonize(), and drop the hack from > allow_signal(). May be... But please note that there are too different things. daemonize() should be deprecated (imho), but this is a bit off-topic. I think that a daemonize()'ed kthread should not play with allow_signal() anyway. And nobody does, except rtl8712 which should be fixed afaics. So this code is already unneeded, but looks confusing. Tejun, Matt, I am sorry. I have to run away, I'll reply to other emails tomorrow. Thanks for review! Oleg.