# Re: \[RFC PATCH 11/18\] jffs2: Convert jffs2\_gcd\_mtd kthread into the iterant API

- From: Jiri Kosina \<hidden\>
- Date: 2015-06-06 21:32:54 
- List: linux-api
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-api/2015/06/4510562
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-nfs/2015/06/4510097/t.md

```text
On Sat, 6 Jun 2015, Oleg Nesterov wrote:

> Still I personally dislike the new kthread_sigaction() API. I agree,
> a couple if signal helpers for kthreads make sense. Say,
> 
> 	void kthread_do_signal_stop(void)
> 	{
> 		spin_lock_irq(&curtent->sighand->siglock);
> 		if (current->jobctl & JOBCTL_STOP_DEQUEUED)
> 			__set_current_state(TASK_STOPPED);
> 		spin_unlock_irq(&current->sighand->siglock);
> 
> 		schedule();
> 	}

... not to mention the fact that 'STOP' keyword in relation to kthreads 
has completely different meaning today, which just contributes to overall 
confusion; but that's an independent story.

> 
> and probably even "int kthread_signal_deque(void)".
> 
> But personally I do not think kthread_do_signal() makes a lot of sense...

Would it be possible for you to elaborate a little bit more why you think 
so ... ?

I personally don't see a huge principal difference between 
"kthread_signal_dequeue() + kthread_do_signal_{stop,...}" vs. generic 
"kthread_do_signal()" that's just basically completely general and takes 
care of 'everything necessary'. That being said, my relationship to signal 
handling code is of course much less intimate compared to yours, so I am 
really curious what particular objections to that interface have.

Thanks a lot,

-- 
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
```