On 04/24, Christian Brauner wrote:
On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 08:52:38PM +0800, Zhenliang Wei wrote:
Acked-by: Christian Brauner christian@brauner.io
I think we're supposed to use more Reviewed-bys so feel free (or Andrew) to change this to:
Reviewed-by: Christian Brauner christian@brauner.io
Ok, I will change this in patch v5.
--- a/kernel/signal.c +++ b/kernel/signal.c @@ -2441,6 +2441,8 @@ bool get_signal(struct ksignal *ksig) if (signal_group_exit(signal)) { ksig->info.si_signo = signr = SIGKILL; sigdelset(¤t->pending.signal, SIGKILL);
trace_signal_deliver(SIGKILL, SEND_SIG_NOINFO,
&sighand->action[signr - 1]);
Hm, sorry for being the really nitpicky person here. Just for the sake of consistency how about we do either:
trace_signal_deliver(SIGKILL, SEND_SIG_NOINFO,
&sighand->action[SIGKILL - 1]);
or
trace_signal_deliver(signr, SEND_SIG_NOINFO,
&sighand->action[signr - 1]);
I'm not going to argue about this though. Can just also leave it as is.
Thank you for your comments and learn from rigorous people! I will take:
+ trace_signal_deliver(SIGKILL, SEND_SIG_NOINFO, + &sighand->action[SIGKILL - 1]);
Any other suggestions about the patch?
Wei