From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753168Ab1HPVu0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Aug 2011 17:50:26 -0400 Received: from arkanian.console-pimps.org ([212.110.184.194]:43709 "EHLO arkanian.console-pimps.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753070Ab1HPVuZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Aug 2011 17:50:25 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] kthreads: allow_signal: don't play with ->blocked From: Matt Fleming To: Tejun Heo Cc: Oleg Nesterov , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20110816195121.GG2803@mtj.dyndns.org> References: <1313071035-12047-1-git-send-email-matt@console-pimps.org> <1313071035-12047-42-git-send-email-matt@console-pimps.org> <20110816180644.GJ29190@redhat.com> <20110816194427.GA6602@redhat.com> <20110816194450.GB6602@redhat.com> <20110816195121.GG2803@mtj.dyndns.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 22:50:22 +0100 Message-ID: <1313531422.3436.218.camel@mfleming-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.2 (2.32.2-1.fc14) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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