Re: [PATCH 1/1] kthreads: allow_signal: don't play with ->blocked

[Matt Fleming]

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,
> 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().

But because daemonize() is exported by the kernel should it go through
the Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt procedure? And if so, can
the allow_signal() patch still go in before daemonize() is removed?

-- 
Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center

--
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/