Re: [PATCH] sysrq: Use SEND_SIG_FORCED instead of force_sig()

[Andrew Morton]

On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 22:52:54 +0200
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 03/26, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > > --- a/drivers/tty/sysrq.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/tty/sysrq.c
> > > @@ -329,7 +329,7 @@ static void send_sig_all(int sig)
> > >  		if (is_global_init(p))
> > >  			continue;
> > >
> > > -		force_sig(sig, p);
> > > +		do_send_sig_info(sig, SEND_SIG_FORCED, p, true);
> > >  	}
> > >  	read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
> > >  }
> >
> > It's unclear how serious this race is (I'm guessing "not very"),
> 
> Well yes, I think that the problems are not very serious.
> 
> > but
> > this patch looks like 3.3 material anyway, yes?
> 
> No, this depends on 629d362b9950166c6fac2aa8425db34d824bb043
> "signal: give SEND_SIG_FORCED more power to beat SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE".

oop, I meant "this patch looks like 3.4 material"?
--
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/