Re: [RFC PATCH 11/18] jffs2: Convert jffs2_gcd_mtd kthread into the iterant API

On 06/07, Jiri Kosina wrote:

On Sun, 7 Jun 2015, Oleg Nesterov wrote:

quoted

quoted

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'.

Then why do we need the new API ?

Well, in a nutshell, because of the "it's general and takes care of
everything" part.

...

Signal handling is just
one of the piggy-backers on top of this general cleanup.

And to avoid the confusion: so far I only argued with the signal
handling part of this API. Namely with kthread_do_signal(), especially
with the SIG_DFL logic.

If we want somthing like kthread_iterant agree it should probably help to
handle the signals too. But afaics kthread_do_signal() doesn't really help
and certainly it is not strictly necessary.

Oleg.