From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756133AbdKCM5T (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Nov 2017 08:57:19 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:46402 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750857AbdKCM5S (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Nov 2017 08:57:18 -0400 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 0A057C0587DE Authentication-Results: ext-mx08.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: ext-mx08.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=jpoimboe@redhat.com Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 07:57:08 -0500 From: Josh Poimboeuf To: Miroslav Benes Cc: jeyu@kernel.org, jikos@kernel.org, pmladek@suse.com, lpechacek@suse.cz, pavel@ucw.cz, live-patching@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Oleg Nesterov , Michael Ellerman , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Andy Lutomirski , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, x86@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] livepatch: send a fake signal to all blocking tasks Message-ID: <20171103125708.tzgn45iabb5sl36i@treble> References: <20171031114853.841-1-mbenes@suse.cz> <20171031114853.841-2-mbenes@suse.cz> <20171102130916.y4jl5a2tuhkivpcr@treble> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.0.1 (2016-04-01) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.32]); Fri, 03 Nov 2017 12:57:18 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 09:02:50AM +0100, Miroslav Benes wrote: > On Thu, 2 Nov 2017, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 12:48:52PM +0100, Miroslav Benes wrote: > > > + > > > +/* > > > + * Sends a fake signal to all non-kthread tasks with TIF_PATCH_PENDING set. > > > + * Kthreads with TIF_PATCH_PENDING set are woken up. Only admin can request this > > > + * action currently. > > > + */ > > > +void klp_force_signals(void) > > > > Since "force" now has a separate meaning, it's a little confusing to > > have it in the name of this function. How about klp_send_signals() or > > klp_signal()? > > or klp_send_signal()? It can send more than one signal, so I'd prefer the plural form: klp_send_signals(). -- Josh