From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 30 May 2002 08:04:29 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 30 May 2002 08:04:29 -0400 Received: from tom.hrz.tu-chemnitz.de ([134.109.132.38]:29715 "EHLO tom.hrz.tu-chemnitz.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 30 May 2002 08:04:27 -0400 Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 12:05:05 +0200 From: Ingo Oeser To: Rusty Russell Cc: torvalds@transmeta.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2.5.19 daemonize calls reparent_init for you Message-ID: <20020530120505.H681@nightmaster.csn.tu-chemnitz.de> In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 03:05:07PM +1000, Rusty Russell wrote: > daemonize() should call reparent_to_init: a classic mistake (I made it > recently). > > Future potential cleanups: > daemonize() should take mask of signals to allow > kernel_thread() should take a name to copy into ->comm. Why no generating kernel threads by basically cloning "init"? This is what we do anyway (creating a clone of init with special properties) but by cloning the current process and adjusting everything needed later to make it appear of a mixture of init clone and idle process clone. Comments? Regards Ingo Oeser -- Science is what we can tell a computer. Art is everything else. --- D.E.Knuth