[Devel] Re: [PATCH 1/4] signals: SEND_SIG_NOINFO should be considered as SI_FROMUSER()

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 10/06, Roland McGrath wrote:
>
> This whole series looks fine to me.  I think in commenting and cleaning up
> any of this, it bears explicit mention that (almost) every signal is
> potentially reduced to SI_USER.

Yes,

> but your logs and comments are not explicit about the relationship
> between that logic and what's implicit in the queue-exhaustion behavior.

Yes. the changelog for 3/4 mentions that this SI_USER doesn't really
mean SI_FROMUSER(), but I agree I should have been more explicit.

Perhaps, we should add the comment to explain that both SI_FROMUSER()
and si_fromuser() are only valid in the sending pathes. Fortunately
get_signal_to_deliver and friends do not care about the origination of
the signal.

Oleg.

_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers at lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers