Re: [PATCH 1/4] signal: give SEND_SIG_FORCED more power to beatSIGNAL_UNKILLABLE

[Oleg Nesterov]

Hi Tejun,

On 02/10, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> > --- a/kernel/signal.c
> > +++ b/kernel/signal.c
> > @@ -1059,7 +1059,8 @@ static int __send_signal(int sig, struct siginfo *info, struct task_struct *t,
> >
> >  	assert_spin_locked(&t->sighand->siglock);
> >
> > -	if (!prepare_signal(sig, t, from_ancestor_ns))
> > +	if (!prepare_signal(sig, t,
> > +			from_ancestor_ns || (info == SEND_SIG_FORCED)))
>
> How about the following indentation instead?  :)
>
> 	if (!prepare_signal(sig, t,
> 	    from_ancestor_ns || (info == SEND_SIG_FORCED)))

Well, I am not sure this looks better, although I do not really mind.
But since this patch is already in -mm, I think I won't send v2 ;)

> Please feel free to add Reviewed-by for 2-4.

Thanks!

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/