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

[Oleg Nesterov]

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.

--
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/