From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752518Ab1HQSaZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Aug 2011 14:30:25 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:44671 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751798Ab1HQSaY (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Aug 2011 14:30:24 -0400 Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 20:26:59 +0200 From: Oleg Nesterov To: Tejun Heo Cc: Matt Fleming , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] kthreads: allow_signal: don't play with ->blocked Message-ID: <20110817182658.GA26946@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> <1313531422.3436.218.camel@mfleming-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com> <20110817072746.GI4254@htj.dyndns.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110817072746.GI4254@htj.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 08/17, Tejun Heo wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 10:50:22PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote: > > On Tue, 2011-08-16 at 21:51 +0200, Tejun Heo wrote: > > > I agree with the patchset but given that daemonize() isn't all that > > > popular and you already posted most (or was it all?) conversions, Yes, with the patches I sent daemonize() has no callers. > but in this case it's an interface which is > quite unpopular and with relatively easy workaround (just use > kthread). Agreed. > The worst thing we can do regarding API change is silently changing > semantics while not changing the interface. > ... > Out-of-kernel user which depended on the combination working would now > be left with code which compiles fine but behaves differently, which > sucks big time. Yes, this is of course possible. > So, let's please collect all the > related patches into one series, This is what I can't understand ;) This connects to your "How do you wanna route these" question in another thread. > drop all in-kernel daemonize() users, > kill daemonize() and then change allow_signal() behavior. OK, if we kill daemonize() without the deprecation stage, this is fine. Initially I assumed it won't go away soon, and this sigdelset() is really nasty although minor. Oleg.