Re: [PATCH 21/20] signal: Replace force_sigsegv(SIGSEGV) with force_fatal_sig(SIGSEGV)
From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Date: 2021-10-21 08:18:22
Also in:
linux-mips, linux-s390, linux-sh, linuxppc-dev, lkml, sparclinux
Possibly related (same subject, not in this thread)
- 2021-10-21 · Re: [PATCH 21/20] signal: Replace force_sigsegv(SIGSEGV) with force_fatal_sig(SIGSEGV) · Eric W. Biederman <hidden>
Hi Eric, Patch 21/20? On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 11:52 PM Eric W. Biederman [off-list ref] wrote:
Now that force_fatal_sig exists it is unnecessary and a bit confusing to use force_sigsegv in cases where the simpler force_fatal_sig is wanted. So change every instance we can to make the code clearer. Signed-off-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <redacted>
arch/m68k/kernel/traps.c | 2 +-
Acked-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds