Re: [PATCH 3/3] signal: do_sigtimedwait() needsretarget_shared_pending()

[Tejun Heo]

Hello,

On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 06:01:15PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > Maybe it would be a good idea to introduce a new helper which checks /
> > enforces that the operation indeed is only unblocking?
> 
> I hope nobody will change ->blocked directly, except this function
> and force_sig_info(). And daemonize/allow_signal/disallow_signal, but
> there are special and probably we can already kill this deprecated
> block/unblock code and forbid kernel_thread(CLONE_SIGHAND) + daemonize().
> In fact I think daemonize() should go away.
> 
> So, I don't really think we need another helper to unblock something.

Oh I see.  I thought there would be quite a number of places
unblocking directly.  If that's not the case, it's fine with me.

> > Also, it can
> > be a pure preference but I think _locked suffix is better / more
> > common for APIs which expect the caller to be responsible for locking.
> 
> Again, I can rename... Cough, but in this case please simply suggest
> another name. set_tsk_blocked_locked?

Oooh, blocked_locked, didn't see that one coming.  Maybe
set_tsk_sigmask() and set_tsk_sigmask_locked()?  I prefer sigmask to
blocked anyway, so...

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/