Re: [PATCH -mm 3/3] proc: make task_sig() lockless

[Oleg Nesterov]

OK. Andrew, please drop

	proc-make-collect_sigign_sigcatch-rcu-safe.patch
	proc-make-task_sig-lockless.patch

On 04/12, Roland McGrath wrote:
>
> > Yes, /proc/pid/status can report the intermediate state, I even sent
> > the updated changelog to document this.
> >
> > But if you are not sure this is OK, I am worried. Do you think we should
> > drop this patch? If yes, I won't argue.
>
> I'm not dead-set against it, but I am hesitant.  My inclination is not to
> remove any previous userland atomicity guarantees with regard to observable
> signal state in any form.

OK. Not that I really understand why do we need atomicity, but OK.

I was going to remove ->siglock from /fs/proc/ completely (except
do_io_accounting), but given that nobody replied to do_task_stat patches
this will not happen soon.

> At least, don't do that in part of a whole
> cleanup flurry where it is intermixed with lots of changes that really are
> pure cleanup with absolutely no userland-observable change.

OK. Anyway, these changes are simple, we can reconsider them later.

Oleg.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/